W5″ Test: A simple method for measuring mean power output in the bench press exercise

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 940-947 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio Tous-Fajardo ◽  
Gerard Moras ◽  
Sergio Rodríguez-Jiménez ◽  
Oliver Gonzalo-Skok ◽  
Albert Busquets ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
Mean Power Output

scholarly journals Impact of Ischemic Intra-Conditioning on Power Output and Bar Velocity of the Upper Limbs

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Wilk ◽  
Michal Krzysztofik ◽  
Jakub Jarosz ◽  
Pawel Krol ◽  
Katarzyna Leznicka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Arterial Occlusion ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Ischemic Conditioning ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Arterial Occlusion Pressure ◽  
Bar Velocity ◽  
Mean Power Output

This study evaluated the effects of ischemic conditioning on power output and bar velocity in the bench press exercise. Ten healthy males (age: 25 ± 2 years; body mass: 92 ± 8 kg; bench press one repetition maximum −1RM: 145 ± 13 kg), took part in two experimental sessions (with and without ischemia), 1 week apart in random and counterbalanced order. In the ischemic condition, cuffs placed around the upper part of the arms were inflated to 80% of arterial occlusion pressure before each set, while in the control condition there was no blood flow restriction. The exercise protocol included 5 sets of three repetitions each, against a resistance equal to 60% 1RM, with 5 min recovery intervals between sets. There was a main effect of condition for mean power output (MP) and mean bar velocity (MV) (p = 0.01), with overall MP being higher in ischemia than in control by 5.6 ± 4.1% (mean ± 90% compatibility limits), a standardized effect size (ES) of 0.51. Overall MV was also higher by 5.5 ± 4.0%, ES = 0.63. Peak power output (PP) and peak bar velocity (PV) were similar in set 1 of the control and ischemia condition (1039 ± 105 vs. 1054 ± 82 W; 684 ± 74 vs. 696 ± 53 W; 1.09 ± 0.07 vs. 1.12 ± 0.09 m/s; 0.81 ± 0.05 vs. 0.82 ± 0.05 m/s, p = 0.67 to 0.99, mean ± standard deviation). However, from set 3 onward (p = 0.03 to 0.001), PP and PV were higher in ischemia compared with control, with the highest difference observed in set 5 (10.9 ± 5.9%, ES = 0.73 for PP and 8.6 ± 4.6%; ES = 0.89 for PV). These results indicate that ischemia used before each set of the bench press exercise increases power output and bar velocity and this may be used as performance-enhancing stimulus during explosive resistance training.

scholarly journals The Effects of Plyometric Conditioning on Post-Activation Bench Press Performance

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Krzysztofik ◽  
Michal Wilk
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Performance Enhancement ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Rest Interval ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Bar Velocity ◽  
Press Performance ◽  
Mean Power Output

Abstract The present study aimed to determine the effects of plyometric push-ups as a conditioning activity (CA) on high-loaded bench press performance. Two groups of resistance-trained males age (24.5 ± 2.6 years, body mass 84.8 ± 8 kg) performed one of two CA protocols: 3 sets of 5 repetitions of plyometric push-ups with a 1 min rest interval between sets (PAPE; n=12) or equal time aerobic warm-up (CONT; n=12). Four minutes after completion of the CA protocols the participants performed 3 sets of 3 repetitions of the bench press exercise at 70%1RM and 4 min rest interval between sets to assess post-activation differences in peak power output (PP), mean power output (MP), peak bar velocity (PV), and mean bar velocity (MV) between conditions. The two-way ANOVA revealed significant condition × set interaction effect for PP (p<0.01), MP (p<0.05), PV (p<0.01), and MV (p=0.02). The post hoc for condition × set interaction showed that PAPE caused a significant decrease in PP and PV for P-Set2 and P-Set3 when compared to baseline (BA). The MP and MV for the PAPE condition decreased significantly during the P-Set3 compared to BA and to P-Set1. The t-test comparisons for delta values showed significant differences between PAPE and CONT in PP for P-Set1 – BA (p<0.01), in MP for P-Set2 – P-Set1 (p<0.03) and for P-Set3 – P-Set1 (p=0.04). Furthermore, there were significant differences in PV for P-Set3 – BA; P-Set2 – P-Set1; P-Set3 – P-Set1 (p<0.01; p<0.01; p<0.02 respectively). Finally, there were significant differences in MV for P-Set1 – BA; P-Set2 – P-Set1 and P-Set3 – P-Set1 (p<0.01; p<0.01; p<0.02 respectively). This study demonstrated that plyometric push-ups lead to performance enhancement of the bench press exercise at 70%1RM. The increases in performance were observed only in the first set following the CA, while a significant decrease of these variables was registered in P-Set2 and P-Set3.

scholarly journals The Effect of the Number of Sets on Power Output for Different Loads

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio J. Morales-Artacho ◽  
Paulino Padial ◽  
Amador García-Ramos ◽  
Belén Feriche
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Power Training ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
The Third ◽  
Optimal Load ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Mean Power Output ◽  
Positive Effect

AbstractThere is much debate concerning the optimal load (OL) for power training. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the number of sets performed for a given load on mean power output (Pmean). Fourteen physically active men performed 3 sets of 3 bench-press repetitions with 30, 40 and 50 kg. The highest mean power value (Pmax) across all loads and Pmean were compared when data were taken from the first set at each absolute load vs. from the best of three sets performed. Pmean increased from the first to the third set (from 5.99 ± 0.81 to 6.16 ± 0.96 W·kg−1, p = 0.017), resulting in a main effect of the set number (p < 0.05). At the 30 kg load Pmean increased from the first to the third set (from 6.01 ± 0.75 to 6.35 ± 0.85 W·kg−1; p < 0.01). No significant effect was observed at 40 and 50 kg loads (p > 0.05). Pmax and velocity were significantly affected by the method employed to determine Pmean at each load (p < 0.05). These results show a positive effect of the number of sets per load on Pmean, affecting Pmax, OL and potentially power training prescription.

scholarly journals Acute Caffeine Intake Enhances Mean Power Output and Bar Velocity during the Bench Press Throw in Athletes Habituated to Caffeine

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Wilk ◽  
Aleksandra Filip ◽  
Michal Krzysztofik ◽  
Mariola Gepfert ◽  
Adam Zajac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Caffeine Intake ◽  
Experimental Session ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Bar Velocity ◽  
Mean Power Output

Background: The main objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the effects of caffeine on power output and bar velocity during an explosive bench press throw in athletes habituated to caffeine. Methods: Twelve resistance trained individuals habituated to caffeine ingestion participated in a randomized double-blind experimental design. Each participant performed three identical experimental sessions 60 min after the intake of a placebo, 3, and 6 mg/kg/b.m. of caffeine. In each experimental session, the participants performed 5 sets of 2 repetitions of the bench press throw (with a load equivalent to 30% repetition maximum (RM), measured in a familiarization trial) on a Smith machine, while bar velocity and power output were registered with a rotatory encoder. Results: In comparison to the placebo, the intake of caffeine increased mean bar velocity during 5 sets of the bench press throw (1.37 ± 0.05 vs. 1.41 ± 0.05 and 1.41 ± 0.06 m/s for placebo, 3, and 6 mg/kg/b.m., respectively; p < 0.01), as well as mean power output (545 ± 117 vs. 562 ± 118 and 560 ± 107 W; p < 0.01). However, caffeine was not effective at increasing peak velocity (p = 0.09) nor peak power output (p = 0.07) during the explosive exercise. Conclusion: The acute doses of caffeine before resistance exercise may increase mean power output and mean bar velocity during the bench press throw training session in a group of habitual caffeine users. Thus, caffeine prior to ballistic exercises enhances performance during a power-specific resistance training session.

scholarly journals Effects of Acute Caffeine Intake on Power Output and Movement Velocity During a Multiple-Set Bench Press Exercise Among Mild Caffeine Users

2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-228
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Filip-Stachnik ◽  
Michal Krzysztofik ◽  
Magdalena Kaszuba ◽  
Katarzyna Leznicka ◽  
Maciej Kostrzewa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Bench Press ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Caffeine Intake ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Acute Dose ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Bar Velocity ◽  
Mean Power Output

Abstract The main goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an acute dose of caffeine (6 mg/kg body mass (b.m.)) on power output and bar velocity during a bench press multiple-set resistance training session in participants with mild daily caffeine consumption (in the range of 1 to 3 mg/kg/b.m). Thirteen recreationally active male participants (age: 21.9 ± 1.2 years, body mass: 74.4 ± 5.3 kg, body mass index: 23.1 ± 1.6 kg/m2, bench press onerepetition maximum (1RM): 79.2 ± 14.9 kg), with daily caffeine ingestion of 1.56 ± 0.56 mg/kg/b.m., participated in the study with a randomized double-blind experimental design. Each participant performed two identical experimental sessions, 60 min after the intake of a placebo (PLAC) or 6 mg/kg/b.m. of caffeine (CAF-6). In each experimental session, participants performed 5 sets of 5 repetitions of the bench press exercise with a load equivalent to 70% 1RM. The eccentric and concentric phases of the bench press exercise were performed at maximal possible velocity in each repetition. Bar velocity was recorded with a linear position transducer and power output was calculated using velocity and load data. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated no significant substance x set interaction for mean power output (MP), mean bar velocity (MV), peak power output (PP) and peak bar velocity (PV). However, there was a significant main effect of substance on MP (p < 0.01; η2 = 0.47) and MV (p < 0.01; η2 =0.45). Post hoc analysis for main effect revealed that MP and MV values in the CAF-6 group were higher than in the PLAC group in all 5 sets of the exercise (p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that an acute dose of caffeine before resistance exercise increased mean power output and mean bar velocity during a multiple-set bench press exercise protocol among mild caffeine users.

Aerobic and Anaerobic Power Distribution During Cross-Country Mountain Bike Racing

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Bernhard Prinz ◽  
Dieter Simon ◽  
Harald Tschan ◽  
Alfred Nimmerichter
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Power Distribution ◽  
Anaerobic Power ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Mountain Bike ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Anaerobic Energy ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Mean Power Output ◽  
Aerobic And Anaerobic

Purpose: To determine aerobic and anaerobic demands of mountain bike cross-country racing. Methods: Twelve elite cyclists (7 males;  = 73.8 [2.6] mL·min-1·kg−1, maximal aerobic power [MAP] = 370 [26] W, 5.7 [0.4] W·kg−1, and 5 females;  = 67.3 [2.9] mL·min−1·kg−1, MAP = 261 [17] W, 5.0 [0.1] W·kg−1) participated over 4 seasons at several (119) international and national races and performed laboratory tests regularly to assess their aerobic and anaerobic performance. Power output, heart rate, and cadence were recorded throughout the races. Results: The mean race time was 79 (12) minutes performed at a mean power output of 3.8 (0.4) W·kg−1; 70% (7%) MAP (3.9 [0.4] W·kg−1 and 3.6 [0.4] W·kg−1 for males and females, respectively) with a cadence of 64 (5) rev·min−1 (including nonpedaling periods). Time spent in intensity zones 1 to 4 (below MAP) were 28% (4%), 18% (8%), 12% (2%), and 13% (3%), respectively; 30% (9%) was spent in zone 5 (above MAP). The number of efforts above MAP was 334 (84), which had a mean duration of 4.3 (1.1) seconds, separated by 10.9 (3) seconds with a mean power output of 7.3 (0.6) W·kg−1 (135% [9%] MAP). Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of the anaerobic energy system and the interaction between anaerobic and aerobic energy systems. Therefore, the ability to perform numerous efforts above MAP and a high aerobic capacity are essential to be competitive in mountain bike cross-country.

scholarly journals Validity of the Velocomp PowerPod Compared With the Verve Cycling InfoCrank Power Meter

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 1382-1387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul F.J. Merkes ◽  
Paolo Menaspà ◽  
Chris R. Abbiss
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Average Power ◽  
Dynamic Environment ◽  
Rolling Resistance ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Power Meter ◽  
Test Study ◽  
Environment Study ◽  
Road Cyclists ◽  
Mean Power Output

Purpose: To determine the validity of the Velocomp PowerPod power meter in comparison with the Verve Cycling InfoCrank power meter. Methods: This research involved 2 separate studies. In study 1, 12 recreational male road cyclists completed 7 maximal cycling efforts of a known duration (2 times 5 s and 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 s). In study 2, 4 elite male road cyclists completed 13 outdoor cycling sessions. In both studies, power output of cyclists was continuously measured using both the PowerPod and InfoCrank power meters. Maximal mean power output was calculated for durations of 1, 5, 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 seconds plus the average power output in study 2. Results: Power output determined by the PowerPod was almost perfectly correlated with the InfoCrank (r > .996; P < .001) in both studies. Using a rolling resistance previously reported, power output was similar between power meters in study 1 (P = .989), but not in study 2 (P = .045). Rolling resistance estimated by the PowerPod was higher than what has been previously reported; this might have occurred because of errors in the subjective device setup. This overestimation of rolling resistance increased the power output readings. Conclusion: Accuracy of rolling resistance seems to be very important in determining power output using the PowerPod. When using a rolling resistance based on previous literature, the PowerPod showed high validity when compared with the InfoCrank in a controlled field test (study 1) but less so in a dynamic environment (study 2).

scholarly journals An Analysis of Variability in Power Output During Indoor and Outdoor Cycling Time Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
pp. 1273-1279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Owen Jeffries ◽  
Mark Waldron ◽  
Stephen D. Patterson ◽  
Brook Galna
Keyword(s):  
Power Output ◽  
Time Trial ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Portable Power ◽  
Output Variability ◽  
Competitive Cyclists ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Power Output ◽  
Testing Protocols ◽  
Indoor And Outdoor

Purpose: Regulation of power output during cycling encompasses the integration of internal and external demands to maximize performance. However, relatively little is known about variation in power output in response to the external demands of outdoor cycling. The authors compared the mean power output and the magnitude of power-output variability and structure during a 20-min time trial performed indoors and outdoors. Methods: Twenty male competitive cyclists ( 60.4 [7.1] mL·kg−1·min−1) performed 2 randomized maximal 20-min time-trial tests: outdoors at a cycle-specific racing circuit and indoors on a laboratory-based electromagnetically braked training ergometer, 7 d apart. Power output was sampled at 1 Hz and collected on the same bike equipped with a portable power meter in both tests. Results: Twenty-minute time-trial performance indoor (280 [44] W) was not different from outdoor (284 [41] W) (P = .256), showing a strong correlation (r = .94; P < .001). Within-persons SD was greater outdoors (69 [21] W) than indoors (33 [10] W) (P < .001). Increased variability was observed across all frequencies in data from outdoor cycling compared with indoors (P < .001) except for the very slowest frequency bin (<0.0033 Hz, P = .930). Conclusions: The findings indicate a greater magnitude of variability in power output during cycling outdoors. This suggests that constraints imposed by the external environment lead to moderate- and high-frequency fluctuations in power output. Therefore, indoor testing protocols should be designed to reflect the external demands of cycling outdoors.

scholarly journals Anaerobic energy provision does not limit Wingate exercise performance in endurance-trained cyclists

2003 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 668-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. L. Calbet ◽  
J. A. De Paz ◽  
N. Garatachea ◽  
S. Cabeza de Vaca ◽  
J. Chavarren
Keyword(s):  
Exercise Performance ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Acute Hypoxia ◽  
Lactate Concentration ◽  
Oxygen Deficit ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Fatigue Index ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Anaerobic Energy ◽  
Mean Power Output

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of severe acute hypoxia on exercise performance and metabolism during 30-s Wingate tests. Five endurance- (E) and five sprint- (S) trained track cyclists from the Spanish National Team performed 30-s Wingate tests in normoxia and hypoxia (inspired O2 fraction = 0.10). Oxygen deficit was estimated from submaximal cycling economy tests by use of a nonlinear model. E cyclists showed higher maximal O2 uptake than S (72 ± 1 and 62 ± 2 ml · kg−1 · min−1, P < 0.05). S cyclists achieved higher peak and mean power output, and 33% larger oxygen deficit than E ( P< 0.05). During the Wingate test in normoxia, S relied more on anaerobic energy sources than E ( P < 0.05); however, S showed a larger fatigue index in both conditions ( P < 0.05). Compared with normoxia, hypoxia lowered O2 uptake by 16% in E and S ( P < 0.05). Peak power output, fatigue index, and exercise femoral vein blood lactate concentration were not altered by hypoxia in any group. Endurance cyclists, unlike S, maintained their mean power output in hypoxia by increasing their anaerobic energy production, as shown by 7% greater oxygen deficit and 11% higher postexercise lactate concentration. In conclusion, performance during 30-s Wingate tests in severe acute hypoxia is maintained or barely reduced owing to the enhancement of the anaerobic energy release. The effect of severe acute hypoxia on supramaximal exercise performance depends on training background.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document