BOOK OF ABSTRACTS 30th Annual Congress of the EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE (1 - 4 July 2025). EFFECT OF LOAD-VELOCITY PROFILING METHODS ON BENCH PRESS 1-RM ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION: Individual load-velocity profiles (LVP), which is measured during multiple sets with incremental load repetitions performed at maximal velocity, have been proposed as an accurate method to assess muscular fitness and onerepetition maximum (1-RM). LVP can be assessed using several protocols consisting of different load increments patterns and reps to be performed. The commonly used strategies to assess the LVPs are to adjust the load increments using either the a) repetition mean propulsive velocity (MPV) performed at the different loads (standardized LVP [LVPSTND]) [1] or b) individuals’ %1-RM using multiple (LVPMULT) [2] or two (LVP2-POINT) [3] loads. Despite variations in sets and repetitions, no study has examined whether testing protocols affect 1-RM load and velocity (V1-RM). This study investigates the impact of different LVP methods on these measures. METHODS: Fifteen healthy males (25.9±3.9 yrs) visited the lab 4 times, separated by at least 48 h of rest. On day 1, participants 1-RMs (89.5±15.9 kg) were assessed and they familiarized with the Smith machine bench press exercise and trained to push the barbell as explosively as possible during the concentric phase. On days 2 to 4 (random order), participants’ LVPs were assessed using: LVPSTND (load increments: 10 kg for MPV>0.5 m/s, 1-5 kg for MPV<0.5 m/s; reps: 3 for MPV>1.0 m/s, 2 for MVP between 0.65-1.0 m/s, 1 for MPV<0.65 m/s), LVPMULT (20, 40, 60, 80, 90% of 1-RM), and LVP2- POINT (50 and 80% of 1-RM) methods, and 1-RM load and V1-RM were assessed. The execution velocity was measured using a linear position transducer (Vitruve, Madrid, Spain) attached to the barbell of a Smith machine. After assessing the normality of the distribution of the variables, 1-RM loads across methods were compared using a repeated-measure ANOVA followed by Bonferroni corrected pairwise post-hoc comparisons, while V1-RM were compared across methods using the Friedman test. RESULTS: The LVP testing method affected (F(2,28)=3.476, η²=0.199, p=0.045) 1-RM load. Bonferroni comparisons showed that solely the LVP2-POINT 1-RM (93.3±16.8 kg) was significantly higher (p=0.044) than the LVPSTND 1-RM (90.6±16.2 kg), whereas there were no differences between LVPMULT (92.3±16.2 kg) and LVP2-POINT (p=1.000) or LVPSTND (p=0.331). Conversely, V1-RM measured using LVPSTND (0.15±0.03 m/s), LVPMULT (0.14±0.04 m/s), and LVP2-POINT (0.16±0.04 m/s) were not different (χ²(2)=0.792, p=0.673). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that while the testing protocol used to assess LVP does not influence V1-RM it affects 1- RM load. In particular, the LVP2-POINT seems to allow an accurate estimation of 1-RM while minimizing fatigue. Therefore, LVP2-POINT could offer not only a higher, hence more accurate, 1-RM estimation, but also a more feasible and timesaving strategy to assess 1-RM due to the fewer sets needed. REFERNCES: [1] Sanchez-Medina et al., Int J Sports Med, 2010 [2] Banyard et al., J Strength Cond Res, 2017 [3] Garcia-Ramos et al., Strength Cond J, 2018