Two-point Method Applied in Field Conditions: A Feasible Approach to Assess the Load-Velocity Relationship Variables During the Bench Pull Exercise

Abstract

Abstract Miras-Moreno, S, García-Ramos, A, Jukic, I, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Two-point method applied in field conditions: a feasible approach to assess the load-velocity relationship variables during the bench pull exercise. J Strength Cond Res 37(7): 1367–1374, 2023—This study explored the between-session reliability and concurrent validity of the load-velocity (L-V) relationship variables obtained from different methods during the Smith machine bench pull exercise. In a counterbalanced order, 23 resistance-trained male subjects performed 2 sessions against 6 different loads in one week and 2 sessions against the lightest and heaviest loads in another week. The L-V relationship variables (load-axis intercept [L 0], velocity-axis intercept [v 0], and area under the L-V relationship line [A line]) were obtained using the mean and peak velocity by the standard multiple-point (all 6 loads were used for the L-V modeling), modified multiple-point (the data point that most reduced the coefficient of determination was omitted from the L-V modeling), and 2-point (only 2 loads were used for the L-V modeling) methods. The reliability of the L-V relationship variables was acceptable for all methods (within-subjects coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.09–9.21%). The standard multiple-point and 2-point methods provided greater reliability for all L-V relationship variables compared with the modified multiple-point method (CVratio ≥ 1.27), while the 2-point method provided similar (CVratio = 1.04 for A line) or greater (CVratio = 1.50 for L 0 and 1.62 for v 0) reliability than the standard multiple-point method. The concurrent validity of the modified multiple-point and 2-point methods was acceptable for the L-V relationship variables (effect size ≤ 0.62; r ≥ 0.76). These results suggest that the 2-point method is not only a valid procedure but also more reliable, simpler, faster, and less prone to fatigue than multiple-point methods for assessing maximal neuromuscular capacities through the L-V relationship.