4.4 Article

ASSESSMENT OF UPPER-BODY BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE BENCH PRESS THROW EXERCISE: WHICH VELOCITY OUTCOME PROVIDES THE HIGHEST RELIABILITY?

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 2701-2707

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002616

Keywords

mean velocity; mean propulsive velocity; maximum velocity; linear position transducer

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport [FPU15/03649]
  2. University of Granada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of 3 velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV], and maximum velocity [Vmax]) to assess bench press throw (BPT) performance. Twenty-one men were tested during 2 consecutive weeks in 2 variants of the BPT exercise (concentric-only and eccentric-concentric) against 5 different loading conditions (17, 27, 37, 47, and 57 kg). The 2 sessions of each BPT variant were performed within the same week separated by 48-72 hours. The main findings revealed that (a) the highest reliability was observed for Vmax (median coefficient of variation [CV] and range) (CV = 2.14% [1.43-4.02%]), followed by MV (CV = 3.18% [1.47-5.22%]), and finally, the MPV was the least reliable variable (CV = 4.27% [1.98-6.38%]), (b) all velocity variables demonstrated a higher reliability during the eccentric-concentric BPT (CV = 2.41% [1.43-5.30%]) when compared with the concentric-only BPT (CV = 4.02% [1.74-6.38%]), and (c) the reliability tended to decrease with the increment of the load: 17 kg (CV = 2.12% [1.43-4.68%]), 27 kg (CV = 1.96% [1.74-3.86%]), 37 kg (CV = 2.98% [2.47-5.67%]), 47 kg (CV = 4.59% [2.32-6.38%]), and 57 kg (CV = 3.92% [1.95-5.52%]). These results indicate that the assessment of the Vmax should be performed with a light-loading condition during the eccentric-concentric BPT for obtaining the most reproducible measure of upper-body ballistic performance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available