4.4 Article

A COMPARISON OF LOAD-VELOCITY AND LOAD-POWER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WELL-TRAINED YOUNG AND MIDDLE-AGED MALES DURING THREE POPULAR RESISTANCE EXERCISES

Journal

JOURNAL OF STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING RESEARCH
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 1440-1447

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001986

Keywords

bench press; squat; bent-over-row; sarcopenia; dynapenia; ageing

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the load-velocity and load-power relationships among 20 young (age 21.0 +/- 1.6 years) and 20 middle-aged (age 42.6 +/- 6.7 years) resistance-trained males. Participants performed 3 repetitions of bench press, squat, and bent-over-row across a range of loads corresponding to 20-80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Analysis revealed effects (p < 0.05) of group and load x group on barbell velocity for all 3 exercises, and interaction effects on power for squat and bent-over-row (p < 0.05). For bench press and bent-over-row, the young group produced higher barbell velocities, with the magnitude of the differences decreasing as load increased (ES; effect size 0.0-1.7 and 1.0-2.0, respectively). Squat velocity was higher in the young group than the middle-aged group (ES 1.0-1.7) across all loads, as was power for each exercise (ES 1.0-2.3). For all 3 exercises, both velocity and 1RM were correlated with optimal power in the middle-aged group (r = 0.613-0.825, p < 0.05), but only 1RM was correlated with optimal power (r = 0.708-0.867, p < 0.05) in the young group. These findings indicate that despite their resistance training, middle-aged males were unable to achieve velocities at low external loads and power outputs as high as the young males across a range of external resistances. Moreover, the strong correlations between 1RM and velocity with optimal power suggest that middle-aged males would benefit from training methods which maximize these adaptations.

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