SPORTS BIOMECHANICS

https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2019.1597155

The load-velocity profiles of three upper-body pushing

exercises in men and women
a,b
Amador García-Ramos , Dejan Suzovicc and Alejandro Pérez-Castilla a

a
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Granada, Granada,
Spain; bDepartment of Sports Sciences and Physical Conditioning, Faculty of Education, Catholic University
of the Most Holy Concepción, Concepción, Chile; cThe Research Centre, Faculty of Sport and Physical
Education, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed to explore the differences in the load-velocity Received 16 October 2018
profile between three upper-body pushing exercises in men and Accepted 14 March 2019
women. The load-velocity profiles (from 20% to 100% of the one- KEYWORDS
repetition maximum [1RM] in 5% increments) of 24 sport sciences Bench press; military press;
students (12 men) were randomly tested during the horizontal velocity-based training;
bench press (HBP), inclined bench press (IBP) and seated military linear position transducer
press (SMP) exercises. The 1RM was higher for the HBP (men:
94.2 ± 14.6 kg; women: 45.4 ± 10.1 kg), followed by the IBP
(men: 87.7 ± 11.6 kg; women: 41.6 ± 6.6 kg), and finally the SMP
(men: 67.4 ± 7.8 kg; women: 37.3 ± 6.3 kg). The mean test velocity
(i.e., averaged velocity of all loads) and the slope of the load-
velocity profile were significantly different between exercises
(SMP > IBP > HBP) and sexes (men > women). The correlations
between the exercises were very high for the individual 1RM
values (r range = 0.714–0.982), but lower correlations were
observed for the mean test velocity (r range = 0.237–0.766) slope
of the load-velocity profile (r range = 0.018–0.721), and velocity of
the 1RM (r range = 0.004–0.446). These results confirm that men
present higher velocities at low relative loads (i.e., %1RM) com-
pared to women during upper-body pushing exercises.

Introduction
The one-repetition maximum (1RM) has been considered the main reference for prescrib-
ing the training loads during resistance training programmes (Kraemer & Ratamess, 2004).
The 1RM has been typically assessed from a single maximal lift (Izquierdo et al., 2006;
McBride, Triplett-McBride, Davie, & Newton, 2002). However, since the direct determina-
tion of the 1RM presents important drawbacks (see García-Ramos and Jaric (2018) for
details), sport scientists have proposed several indirect methods to predict the 1RM
(Brzycki, 1993; González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Jidovtseff, Harris, Crielaard,
& Cronin, 2011; Picerno et al., 2016). The method that has received the most scientific
attention over the last decade is based on the measurement of movement velocity
(Balsalobre-Fernandez, Marchante, Muñoz-Lopez, & Jimenez, 2018; García-Ramos &
Jaric, 2018; Jovanonic & Flanagan, 2014; Mann, Ivey, & Sayers, 2015). Generalised group

CONTACT Amador García-Ramos [email protected]

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. GARCÍA-RAMOS ET AL.

equations have been proposed for predicting the 1RM as well as the relative loads (i.e., %
1RM) from the velocity recorded during a single repetition performed at the maximal
voluntary velocity (Conceição, Fernandes, Lewis, Gonzaléz-Badillo, & Jimenéz-Reyes, 2016;
García-Ramos, Pestaña-Melero, Pérez-Castilla, Rojas, & Haff, 2018b; González-Badillo &
Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Pérez-Castilla, García-Ramos, Padial, Morales-Artacho, & Feriche,
2017; Sánchez-Medina, González-Badillo, Pérez, & Pallarés, 2014). Generalised group
equations assume that a given velocity output represents the same %1RM for all individuals
(González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010). However, recent studies have questioned this
assumption, suggesting that the individual load-velocity relationship should be determined
for a more accurate prediction of the 1RM (García-Ramos et al., 2018, 2018b; Helms et al.,
2017).
The first limitation of the generalised group equations is that the same velocity
output could represent a different %1RM for each exercise (i.e., generalised group
equations are exercise-specific) (Conceição et al., 2016; García-Ramos et al., 2018b;
Pérez-Castilla et al., 2017; Sánchez-Medina et al., 2014). A possible explanation for this
phenomenon is that each exercise presents its own velocity of the 1RM (V1RM). In this
regard, exercises whose V1RM is higher (e.g., bench pull [0.52 m/s] compared to the
bench press [0.17 m/s]) also tend to present higher velocities at each relative load (e.g.,
V50%1RM = 1.20 and 0.94 m/s for bench pull and bench press, respectively]) (Sánchez-
Medina et al., 2014). However, there is also a possibility that the architecture of the
major muscles involved in the exercise has an influence on the load-velocity profile. For
example, it is plausible that exercises mainly involving muscles characterised by faster
shortening velocities (i.e., a greater fibre length and longitudinal fibre arrangement)
present higher velocities for the same relative loads compared to exercises involving
muscles characterised by greater force capabilities (i.e., a shorter fibre length and greater
pennation angles) (Luczak, Bosak, & Riemann, 2013). To evaluate this assumption, it
would be necessary to compare the load-velocity profile between exercises with a similar
V1RM but involving muscles with different characteristics. A potential solution could
be to compare the load-velocity profile between the horizontal bench press (HBP),
inclined BP (IBP) and seated military press (SMP). While the V1RM is not expected to
meaningfully differ between these exercises, the pectoralis major (a large muscle
characterised by relatively high pennation angle of their fibres) is known to play
a more important role during the HBP than the SMP (Luczak et al., 2013). Therefore,
due to the lower expected activation of the pectoralis major with higher inclination of
the bench, it could be hypothesised that the velocity at each %1RM would be higher for
the SMP, followed by the IBP, and finally the HBP.
The second limitation of the generalised group equations is that they seem to be sex-
specific. Namely, previous studies conducted on the HBP and SMP exercises have
identified that the slope of the %1RM–velocity relationship is steeper for men compared
to women with similar training backgrounds (Balsalobre-Fernández, García-Ramos, &
Jiménez-Reyes, 2018; Torrejon, Balsalobre-Fernandez, Haff, & Garcia-Ramos, 2018).
More importantly, García-Ramos et al. (2018b) showed that the male participants with
higher velocities for a given %1RM during the concentric-only BP variant also tend to
reveal higher velocities for the same %1RM during the eccentric–concentric BP variant.
These results suggest that the load-velocity profiles are participant-specific and, there-
fore, they discourage the use of generalised group equations. To further explore the
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 3

existence of individual load-velocity profiles, it would be of interest to quantify the

association between different variables of the load-velocity profile obtained from dif-
ferent upper-body pushing exercises (e.g., HBP, IBP and SMP). Specifically, it would be
important to elucidate whether participants with a more velocity-oriented profile in one
exercise (i.e., higher velocities at submaximal relative loads) also have the same profile
orientation in other exercises.
The aim of this study was to compare the load-velocity profile between men and
women during three upper-body pushing exercises performed with different inclination
angles of the bench (0° [HBP], 45° [IBP] and 85° [SMP]). We hypothesised that (I) the
velocity at each %1RM would increase with higher inclination of the bench (i.e., SMP >
IBP > HBP), (II) men would present a steeper load-velocity profile (i.e., higher velocities
at low %1RM and comparable velocities at high %1RM) than women (Balsalobre-Fern
ández, García-Ramos et al., 2018; Torrejon et al., 2018), and (III) the load-velocity
profiles (i.e., mean test velocity and slope of the load-velocity relationship) would be
positively correlated between the three exercises (García-Ramos et al., 2018b). The
expected findings should provide novel and valuable information for refining the
procedures used by strength and conditioning professionals and physical therapists
that use the velocity-based resistance training approach in practice.

Methods
Participants
Twenty-four sport sciences students, 12 men (age = 19.9 ± 1.2 years, body
mass = 78.1 ± 9.4 kg, body height 1.80 ± 0.06 m) and 12 women (age = 20.4 ± 1.3 years,
body mass = 64.3 ± 5.5 kg, body height 1.71 ± 0.06 m), participated in this study. All
participants were physically active with at least 2 years of resistance training experience
(2–5 sessions/week) and were accustomed to performing the three upper-body pushing
exercises as a part of their academic curriculum. Participants did not report any
physical limitation, health problem or recent musculoskeletal injury that could com-
promise testing. All participants were informed of the study procedures and signed
a written informed consent form prior to initiating the study. The study protocol
adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the
University of Granada Institutional Review Board.

Experimental design
A repeated-measures design was used to compare the load-velocity profiles between
three upper-body pushing exercises in men and women. The HBP, IBP and SMP
exercises were tested in a randomised order during three sessions separated by 48–72
hours. The individual load-velocity profiles were determined by means of an incre-
mental loading test following standard procedures (García-Ramos et al., 2018b). Testing
sessions were performed at the same time of the day for each participant (±1 h) and
under similar environmental conditions (~22°C and ~60% humidity).
4 A. GARCÍA-RAMOS ET AL.

Testing procedures
Each testing session began with a 10-min standardised warm-up, which included
jogging, dynamic stretching, arm and shoulder mobilisation, and one set of five repeti-
tions with an external load of 17.5 kg (mass of the unloaded Smith machine barbell) in
the tested exercise. After warming up, participants rested for 3 min before the initiation
of the incremental loading test.
The initial external load was always set at 17.5 kg. Thereafter, the load was progres-
sively increased by 10 kg for men and 5 kg for women until the attained mean velocity
of the barbell was lower than 0.50 m/s. From that moment, the load was progressively
increased in steps of 1–5 kg for men and of 1–2.5 kg for women until the 1RM load was
achieved. The average number of loads tested was 9.5 ± 2.0 and 6.0 ± 1.8 for HBP,
8.4 ± 1.1 and 6.5 ± 1.4 for IBP, and 7.0 ± 1.0 and 5.6 ± 0.9 for SMP, in men and women,
respectively. For the lighter loads (mean velocity > 1.0 m/s) three repetitions were
executed at each load, two for the medium (0.65 m/s ≤ mean velocity ≤ 1.0 m/s), and
only one for the heavier loads (mean velocity < 0.65 m/s). The intra-set rest was 15 s,
whereas the inter-set rest was 5 min. None of the participants reported fatigue.
Participants received velocity performance feedback immediately after each repetition
to encourage them to perform all repetitions at the maximal intended velocity.
The three exercises were performed according to the five-point body contact position
technique (head, back, and buttocks firmly on the bench with both feet flat on the floor).
The main difference between the three exercises was the inclination angle of the bench: 0°
for the HBP, 45° for the IBP and 85° for the SMP. The mechanical brake of the Smith
machine was used to hold the barbell during each repetition. The barbell was located parallel
to the participants’ nipples just 2–3 cm above their chest at the level of the sternum during
the HBP and IBP (García-Ramos et al., 2018b). For the SMP, the barbell was held just about
3–5 cm below their chin in the upper part of chest (Balsalobre-Fernández, García-Ramos
et al., 2018). From the initial position, participants were instructed to lift the barbell as fast as
possible until their elbows reached full extension. Participants self-selected the grip width
(approximately shoulder width), which was individually measured and kept constant
throughout all lifts. Since the participants were instructed not to thrown the barbell (i.e.,
the hands always remained in contact with the barbell), it should be noted that they had to
voluntarily brake the barbell when light and medium loads were lifted (Sanchez-Medina,
Perez, & Gonzalez-Badillo, 2010). Although previous investigations have recommended the
mean propulsive velocity to evaluate an individual’s neuromuscular potential when lifting
light and medium loads (Sanchez-Medina et al., 2010), it has been shown that the load-
velocity relationship could be obtained with a higher reliability using the mean velocity (i.e.,
the average velocity from the start of the concentric phase until the barbell reaches the
maximum height) compared to the mean propulsive velocity (.e., the average velocity from
the start of the concentric phase until the acceleration of the barbell is lower than gravity)
(García-Ramos, Pestaña-Melero, Pérez-Castilla, Rojas, & Haff, 2018a).

Measurement equipment and data analysis

Height (Stadiometer Seca 202, Seca Ltd., Hamburg, Germany) and body mass (InBody 720
Bioelectrical Impedance Analyzer, Seoul, Korea) were assessed within the first testing
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 5

session. All tests were performed in a Smith machine that restricted the movement of the
barbell to the vertical direction. A linear position transducer (Real Power Pro Globus,
Cologne, Italy) was attached to the barbell and recorded the displacement-time data with
a frequency of 1,000 Hz. The mean velocity was the variable used to determine the load-
velocity profiles because it has been suggested to be the most precise variable to determine
the relative load during the bench press exercise (García-Ramos et al., 2018a). In addition,
the software of the linear position transducer used in the present study did not provide the
mean propulsive velocity. The repetition with the highest mean velocity of each loading
condition was used for statistical analyses. The mean velocity attained at each %1RM (i.e.,
from 20%1RM to 100%1RM in 5% increments) were obtained from the individual load-
velocity relationships by means of linear regression models (Pérez-Castilla et al., 2017;
Pestaña-Melero, Haff, Rojas, Pérez-Castilla, & García-Ramos, 2018). The mean test velocity
was the averaged velocity value obtained from all relative loads from the 20%1RM to the
100%1RM (García-Ramos et al., 2018b).

Statistical analyses
Data are presented as M and SD, while the Pearson’s multivariate coefficient of determina-
tion (r2) are presented through their median values and range. The normal distribution of
the data and the homogeneity of variances were confirmed by the Shapiro–Wilk test and
Levene’s test, respectively (p > 0.05). The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used when
sphericity was violated. The goodness of fit of the load-velocity profiles was assessed by r2
and the standard error of the estimate (SEE). A mixed model analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was applied to each dependent variable (i.e., mean velocity values attained at
each %1RM, 1RM strength, V1RM, mean test velocity, and slope of the load-velocity
relationship) with the exercise (HBP, IBP, and SMP) as within-participant factor and sex
(men and women) as between-participant factor. The Bonferroni post-hoc correction was
used for pairwise comparisons. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) were used to quantify
the association of the 1RM value, V1RM, mean test velocity, and the slope of the load-
velocity relationship between the three exercises. The criteria to interpret the strength of the
correlations was as follows: trivial (<0.1), small (0.1–0.3), moderate (0.3–0.5), high (0.5–0.7),
very high (0.7–0.9), or practically perfect (>0.9) (Hopkins, Marshall, Batterham, & Hanin,
2009). Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using
the software package SPSS (IBM SPSS version 22.0, Chicago, IL, USA).

Results
The load-velocity profile of the three upper-body pushing exercises was well fitted by
a linear regression model when the data of all participants of the same sex were pooled
(all r2 > 0.92) (Figure 1). The slope of the generalised across the participants load-
velocity profiles was always steeper in men than in women (% difference:
HBP = +19.8%; IBP = +19.3%; SMP = +12.2%). The individual load-velocity profiles
were also fitted by a linear regression model for the HBP (men: r2 = 0.987 [0.974–-
0.997]), women: r2 = 0.987 [0.967–0.995]), IBP (men: r2 = 0.984 [0.971–0.996]), women:
r2 = 0.990 [0.974–1.000]), and SMP (men: r2 = 0.989 [0.960–0.998]), women: r2 = 0.988
[0.960–0.998]).
6 A. GARCÍA-RAMOS ET AL.

Figure 1. Load-velocity profiles obtained separately from the horizontal bench press (upper panel),
inclined bench press (middle panel), and seated military press exercises (lower panel) (data averaged
across the participants). The linear regression models are shown separately for men (dashed line and
open circles) and women (straight line and filled circles). r2, Pearson’s multivariate coefficient of
determination; SEE, standard error of the estimate; N, number of trials included in the regression
analysis.
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 7

The ANOVAs applied on the mean velocity attained at each tested %1RM revealed
that higher velocity values were generally achieved for the SMP, followed by the IBP,
and finally the HBP; men provided higher velocity values than women against light and
medium loads; and no significant exercise × sex interactions were observed for any %
1RM (Table 1).
Table 2 provides the results of the ANOVAs conducted on the remaining dependent
variables. The 1RM value was higher for the HBP, followed by the IBP, and finally the
SMP; men presented higher 1RM than women; and the significant exercise × sex
interaction revealed that the 1RM value differed more between men and women in
the HBP (+107.5%) and IBP (+110.8%) as compared to the SMP (+80.7%). The V1RM
did not significantly differ between exercises nor between sexes. The mean test velocity
and the slope of the load-velocity profile were significantly different between exercises
(SMP > IBP > HBP) and sexes (men > women), while the exercise × sex interactions did
not reach statistical significance.
The correlations between the exercises for the individual 1RM values ranged from
0.714 (very high) to 0.982 (practically perfect), and lower correlations were observed for
the mean test velocity (r ranged from 0.237 [small] to 0.766 [very high]), slope of the
load-velocity profile (r ranged from 0.018 [trivial] to 0.721 [very high]), and velocity of
the 1RM (r ranged from 0.004 [trivial] to 0.446 [moderate]) (Figure 2).

Discussion and implications

This study explored the load-velocity profile during three upper-body pushing exercises
(HBP, IBP and SMP) in men and women. The main finding suggests that the load-
velocity profile (i.e., the velocity associated to each %1RM) is exercise-specific, sex-
specific and participant-specific. Regarding our first hypothesis, higher velocities for the
same relative loads (i.e., %1RM) were observed for the SMP, followed by the IBP, and
finally the HBP. In line with our second hypothesis, men showed higher velocities than
women for the same %1RM during the three exercises. Finally, the positive correlations
observed for mean test velocity and the load-velocity profile support our third hypoth-
esis, revealing that the participants that presented a lower deficit of force with the light-
medium loads (as represented by a higher mean test velocity and a steeper slope of the
load-velocity profile) during one exercise also tended to have a lower deficit of force
with the other two exercises. The between-sex differences and positive correlations
observed between exercises for mean test velocity and the load-velocity profile provide
additional support to the necessity of modelling individualised load-velocity profiles for
a more accurate prescription of the loads during the velocity-based resistance training
programmes.
Supporting our first hypothesis, the velocity attained at submaximal relative loads (%
1RM) increased together with the inclination of the bench (i.e., SMP > IBP > HBP).
Previous studies have reported that the load-velocity profile is exercise-specific
(Conceição et al., 2016; García-Ramos et al., 2018b; Pérez-Castilla et al., 2017; Sánchez-
Medina et al., 2014). However, their findings could be attributed to the differences in
the V1RM of the compared exercises. In the present study, we observed differences in
the load-velocity profile between three upper-body exercises that did not significantly
differ in the V1RM. Therefore, it is evident that the V1RM is not the only factor
 8
A. GARCÍA-RAMOS ET AL.
Table 1. Comparison of the mean velocity attained against each relative load between the three upper-body pushing exercises in men and women.
ANOVA (Snedecor’s F) Horizontal bench press (m/s) Inclined bench press (m/s) Seated military press (m/s)
Load (%1RM) Exercise Sex Interaction Men Women Men Women Men Women
20 14.9* 41.8* 1.5 1.41 ± 0.09 1.21 ± 0.10† 1.46 ± 0.08# 1.27 ± 0.15† 1.52 ± 0.12# 1.40 ± 0.10†#δ
25 15.4* 39.9* 1.6 1.33 ± 0.09 1.14 ± 0.09† 1.38 ± 0.07# 1.21 ± 0.14† 1.44 ± 0.11# 1.32 ± 0.09†#δ
30 16.0* 37.7* 1.6 1.25 ± 0.08 1.08 ± 0.09† 1.30 ± 0.07# 1.14 ± 0.13† 1.36 ± 0.11# 1.25 ± 0.09†#δ
35 16.7* 35.3* 1.6 1.17 ± 0.07 1.01 ± 0.08† 1.22 ± 0.06# 1.07 ± 0.12† 1.27 ± 0.10# 1.17 ± 0.08†#δ
40 17.4* 32.7* 1.7 1.09 ± 0.07 0.95 ± 0.08† 1.14 ± 0.06# 1.00 ± 0.12† 1.19 ± 0.09# 1.10 ± 0.07†#δ
45 18.1* 29.8* 1.7 1.01 ± 0.06 0.88 ± 0.08† 1.06 ± 0.05# 0.94 ± 0.11† 1.11 ± 0.09# 1.03 ± 0.07†#δ
50 18.9* 26.7* 1.7 0.93 ± 0.06 0.82 ± 0.07† 0.98 ± 0.05# 0.87 ± 0.10† 1.02 ± 0.08# 0.95 ± 0.06†#δ
55 19.7* 23.3* 1.8 0.85 ± 0.05 0.75 ± 0.07† 0.90 ± 0.04# 0.80 ± 0.09† 0.94 ± 0.07# 0.88 ± 0.06†#δ
60 20.4* 19.7* 1.8 0.78 ± 0.04 0.68 ± 0.06† 0.82 ± 0.04# 0.73 ± 0.08† 0.86 ± 0.07# 0.80 ± 0.05†#δ
65 20.9* 15.9* 1.8 0.70 ± 0.04 0.62 ± 0.06† 0.74 ± 0.04# 0.67 ± 0.08† 0.77 ± 0.06# 0.73 ± 0.05#δ
70 21.0* 12.0* 1.7 0.62 ± 0.04 0.55 ± 0.06† 0.66 ± 0.03# 0.60 ± 0.07† 0.69 ± 0.06# 0.65 ± 0.04#
75 20.4* 8.2* 1.6 0.54 ± 0.03 0.49 ± 0.05† 0.58 ± 0.03# 0.53 ± 0.06†# 0.61 ± 0.06# 0.58 ± 0.04#
80 10.0* 4.7 1.3 0.46 ± 0.03 0.42 ± 0.05† 0.50 ± 0.03# 0.47 ± 0.05# 0.52 ± 0.05# 0.51 ± 0.04#
85 16.7* 1.9 1.0 0.38 ± 0.03 0.36 ± 0.05 0.42 ± 0.03# 0.40 ± 0.05# 0.44 ± 0.05# 0.43 ± 0.04#
90 13.6* 0.3 0.6 0.30 ± 0.03 0.29 ± 0.05 0.34 ± 0.03# 0.33 ± 0.04# 0.36 ± 0.05# 0.36 ± 0.04#
95 10.4* 0.2 0.3 0.23 ± 0.03 0.22 ± 0.04 0.26 ± 0.03# 0.26 ± 0.04# 0.27 ± 0.05# 0.28 ± 0.04#
100 7.5* 2.0 0.1 0.15 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.04 0.18 ± 0.04# 0.20 ± 0.03# 0.19 ± 0.06 0.21 ± 0.04
1RM, one-repetition maximum; ANOVA, analysis of variance; *, significant F value; †, significant differences between sexes; #, significant differences from the horizontal bench press; δ,
significant differences from the inclined bench press.
Table 2. Comparison of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength, the velocity of the 1RM (V1RM), mean test velocity (MTV) and slope of the load-velocity
profile (L-V slope) between the three upper-body pushing exercises in men and women.
ANOVA (Snedecor’s F) Horizontal bench press Inclined bench press Seated military press
Variable Exercise Sex Interaction Men Women Men Women Men Women
1RM (kg) 72.6* 145.8* 32.1* 94.2 ± 14.6 45.4 ± 10.1† 87.7 ± 11.6# 41.6 ± 6.6†# 67.4 ± 7.8#δ 37.3 ± 6.3†#δ
V1RM (m/s) 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.154 ± 0.042 0.148 ± 0.051 0.162 ± 0.038 0.163 ± 0.035 0.179 ± 0.065 0.180 ± 0.037
MTV (m/s) 20.4* 19.7* 1.8 0.78 ± 0.04 0.68 ± 0.06† 0.82 ± 0.04# 0.73 ± 0.08† 0.86 ± 0.07# 0.80 ± 0.05 †#δ
L-V slope (kg⋅s/m) 6.7* 73.7* 1.1 0.0157 ± 0.0013 0.0131 ± 0.0010† 0.0160 ± 0.0011 0.0134 ± 0.0017† 0.0167 ± 0.0016 0.0149 ± 0.0014†#δ
ANOVA, analysis of variance; *, significant F value; †, significant differences between sexes; #, significant differences from the horizontal bench press; δ, significant differences from the
inclined bench press.
SPORTS BIOMECHANICS
9
10 A. GARCÍA-RAMOS ET AL.

Figure 2. Individual values and correlations between the three upper-body pushing exercises of the
one-repetition maximum (1RM, upper-left panel), the velocity of the 1RM (V1RM, upper-right panel),
mean test velocity (MTV, lower-left panel), and the slope of the load-velocity profile (L-V slope,
lower-right panel). Data are shown separately for men (empty dots) and women (filled dots). The
numbers represent the Pearson’s correlation coefficients. HBP, horizontal bench press; IBP, inclined
bench press; seated military press (SMP). *significant correlation (p < 0.05).

responsible for the different %1RM–velocity profiles. An increase in the bench inclina-
tion has been associated with a higher activation of the trapezius and anterior deltoid
muscles, but with a reduction in the activation of more powerful muscles such as the
pectoralis major (Luczak et al., 2013). The lower activation of the pectoralis major could
be responsible for the lower 1RM observed for the SMP (85° inclination angle)
compared to the IBP (45° inclination angle) and HBP (0° inclination angle). The higher
velocities for the same %1RM with higher inclination of the bench (i.e.,
SMP > IBP > HBP) suggest that the inclination of the bench may affect more the
ability to produce force against heavy than light loading conditions. Thus, it seems that
the load-velocity profile is influenced by the muscle mass involved in the exercise.
Supporting our second hypothesis, men showed higher velocities at submaximal
relative loads than women, while the V1RM did not significantly differ between both
sexes. These results are in line with the findings of previous studies that have compared
the load-velocity profiles between men and women (Balsalobre-Fernández,
García-Ramos et al., 2018; Torrejon et al., 2018). Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (2018)
revealed that during the SMP men presented higher velocities than women at 25%1RM,
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 11

50%1RM and 75%1RM, while the differences were trivial at the 100%1RM. Torrejon
et al. (2018) analysed the HBP using the stretch-shortening cycle, and they found higher
velocities for men at light relative loads despite that the V1RM was higher in women
(0.21 m/s) than in men (0.17 m/s). Collectively, these results reveal that the slope of the
%1RM–velocity relationship during upper-body pushing exercises is markedly steeper
in men than in women. The same result (i.e., lower velocities at low %1RM) has been
reported for middle-aged men when compared to their young counterparts during the
HBP, squat and bent-over-row exercises (Fernandes, Lamb, & Twist, 2018). Future
studies should clarify whether the steeper load-velocity profile reported for men when
compared to women during the upper-body pushing exercises can be extrapolated to
other resistance training exercises and explore the mechanistic reasons of these results.
The analysis of the associations between the three exercises revealed a positive correla-
tion for the individual 1RM value, whereas no significant correlations were observed for
the V1RM. No significant correlations for the V1RM were expected since it has been
shown that the V1RM is characterised by both a low reliability and low between-
participants variability (Banyard, Nosaka, Vernon, & Haff, 2018; García-Ramos et al.,
2018b). In line with our third hypothesis, the mean test velocity and the slope of the %
1RM–velocity relationship correlated positively between the three exercises.
García-Ramos et al. (2018b) also reported positive correlations between mean test velocity
obtained from the concentric-only and the eccentric–concentric HBP exercises.
Therefore, the present results generally suggest that the participants characterised by
higher velocities for a given %1RM in one upper-body pushing exercise also tend to have
higher velocities in other upper-body pushing exercises. It is important to note that all
these differences were obtained although the V1RM did not significantly differ between
exercises. These findings generally discourage the use of generalised group equations,
which assume that a given velocity output represents the same %1RM for all participants.

Conclusions
The %1RM–velocity relationships followed a linear trend during the three upper-body
pushing exercises. The slope of the %1RM–velocity relationship significantly differed
between the exercises (steeper slope was observed for the SMP, followed by the IBP, and
finally the HBP) and sexes (steeper slope was observed in men compared to women).
The V1RM did not differ significantly between exercises or between sexes. The mean
test velocity and the slope of the %1RM–velocity relationship were positively and on
average moderately correlated between the three exercises. Collectively, these results
suggest that the load-velocity profile is exercise-specific, sex-specific and participant-
specific.

Acknowledgments
The present study was conducted at the laboratory lead by Dr. Slobodan Jaric, who passed away
during the writing process of this paper. We wish to thank Dr. Slobodan Jaric for inspiring our past,
present and future research work.
12 A. GARCÍA-RAMOS ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This study was supported by the University of Granada under a postdoctoral grant (perfeccio-
namiento de doctores) awarded to AGR and by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sport under a pre-doctoral grant (FPU15/03649) awarded to APC. The study was supported in
part by a grant from Serbian Research Council (#175037).

ORCID
Amador García-Ramos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0608-8755
Alejandro Pérez-Castilla http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5535-2087

References
Balsalobre-Fernández, C., García-Ramos, A., & Jiménez-Reyes, P. (2018). Load-velocity profiling
in the military press exercise: Effects of gender and training. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 13, 743–750. doi:10.1177/1747954117738243
Balsalobre-Fernandez, C., Marchante, D., Muñoz-Lopez, M., & Jimenez, S. L. (2018). Validity
and reliability of a novel iPhone app for the measurement of barbell velocity and 1RM on the
bench-press exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36, 64–70. doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1280610
Banyard, H. G., Nosaka, K., Vernon, A. D., & Haff, G. G. (2018). The reliability of individualized
load-velocity profiles. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13, 763–769.
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0610
Brzycki, M. (1993). Strength testing–Predicting a one-rep max from reps-to-fatigue. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64, 88–90. doi:10.1080/07303084.1993.10606684
Conceição, F., Fernandes, J., Lewis, M., Gonzaléz-Badillo, J. J., & Jimenéz-Reyes, P. (2016).
Movement velocity as a measure of exercise intensity in three lower limb exercises. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 34, 1099–1106. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1090010
Fernandes, J. F. T., Lamb, K. L., & Twist, C. (2018). A comparison of load-velocity and
load-power relationships between well-trained young and middle-aged males during three
popular resistance exercises. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32, 1440–1447.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001986
García-Ramos, A., Haff, G. G., Pestaña-Melero, F. L., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., Balsalobre-
Fernández, C., & Jaric, S. (2018). Feasibility of the 2-point method for determining the
1-repetition maximum in the bench press exercise. International Journal of Sports Physiology
and Performance, 13, 474–481. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0374
García-Ramos, A., & Jaric, S. (2018). Two-point method: A quick and fatigue-free procedure for
assessment of muscle mechanical capacities and the one-repetition maximum. Strength and
Conditioning Journal, 40, 54–66. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000359
García-Ramos, A., Pestaña-Melero, F. L., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., & Haff, G. (2018a). Mean
velocity vs. mean propulsive velocity vs. peak velocity: Which variable determines bench press
relative load with higher reliability? Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 32,
1273–1279. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001998
García-Ramos, A., Pestaña-Melero, F. L., Pérez-Castilla, A., Rojas, F. J., & Haff, G. G. (2018b).
Differences in the load-velocity profile between 4 bench press variants. International Journal of
Sport Physiology and Performance, 13, 326–331. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2017-0158
 SPORTS BIOMECHANICS 13

González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement velocity as a measure of loading

intensity in resistance training. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 347–352.
doi:10.1055/s-0030-1249083
Helms, E. R., Storey, A., Cross, M. R., Brown, S. R., Lenetsky, S., Ramsay, H., . . . Zourdos, M. C.
(2017). RPE and velocity relationships for the back squat, bench press, and deadlift in
powerlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31, 292–297. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000001517
Hopkins, W. G., Marshall, S. W., Batterham, A. M., & Hanin, J. (2009). Progressive statistics for
studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
41, 3–13. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278
Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ratamess, N. A.,
Kraemer, W. J., . . . Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006). Differential effects of strength training leading
to failure versus not to failure on hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains.
Journal of Applied Physiology, 100, 1647–1656. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01400.2005
Jidovtseff, B., Harris, N. K., Crielaard, J. M., & Cronin, J. B. (2011). Using the load-velocity
relationship for 1RM prediction. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25, 267–270.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b62c5f
Jovanonic, M., & Flanagan, E. P. (2014). Researched applications of velocity based strength
training. Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 22, 58–69.
Kraemer, W. J., & Ratamess, N. A. (2004). Fundamentals of resistance training: Progression and
exercise prescription. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36, 674–688. doi:10.1249/01.
MSS.0000121945.36635.61
Luczak, J., Bosak, A., & Riemann, B. L. (2013). Shoulder muscle activation of novice and
resistance trained women during variations of dumbbell press exercises. Journal of Sports
Medicine, 2013, 612650. doi:10.1155/2013/612650
Mann, J., Ivey, P., & Sayers, S. (2015). Velocity-based training in football. Strength &
Conditioning Journal, 37, 52–57. doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000177
McBride, J. M., Triplett-McBride, T., Davie, A., & Newton, R. U. (2002). The effect of heavy- vs.
light-load jump squats on the development of strength, power, and speed. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 16, 75–82. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(2002)016<0075:TEOHVL>2.0.CO;2
Pérez-Castilla, A., García-Ramos, A., Padial, P., Morales-Artacho, A., & Feriche, B. (2017). Load-
velocity relationship in variations of the half-squat exercise: Influence of execution technique.
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, Advance online publication. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000002072.
Pestaña-Melero, F., Haff, G., Rojas, F., Pérez-Castilla, A., & García-Ramos, A. (2018). Reliability
of the load-velocity relationship obtained through linear and polynomial regression models to
predict the one-repetition maximum load. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 34, 184–190.
doi:10.1123/jab.2017-0266
Picerno, P., Iannetta, D., Comotto, S., Donati, M., Pecoraro, F., Zok, M., . . . Piacentini, M. F.
(2016). 1RM prediction: A novel methodology based on the force-velocity and load-velocity
relationships. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 116, 2035–2043. doi:10.1007/s00421-
016-3457-0
Sánchez-Medina, L., González-Badillo, J. J., Pérez, C. E., & Pallarés, J. G. (2014). Velocity- and
power-load relationships of the bench pull vs bench press exercises. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 35, 209–216. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1351252
Sanchez-Medina, L., Perez, C. E., & Gonzalez-Badillo, J. J. (2010). Importance of the propulsive
phase in strength assessment. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 123–129.
doi:10.1055/s-0029-1242815
Torrejon, A., Balsalobre-Fernandez, C., Haff, G. G., & Garcia-Ramos, A. (2018). The
load-velocity profile differs more between men and women than between individuals with
different strength levels. Sports Biomechanics, Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/
14763141.2018.1433872.