ArticlePloS one2023
Estimating the relative load from movement velocity in the seated chest press exercise in older adults.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Load-velocity profiles in machine-based exercises: comparing trained college students with recreationally active and sedentary middle-aged and older adults.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of the T-Force and Chronojump systems to measure movement velocity on resistance machines with older adults.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Optimizing resistance training intensity in supportive care for survivors of breast cancer: velocity-based approach in the row exercise.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Optimizing exercise prescription during breast cancer rehabilitation in women: Analysis of the load-velocity relationship in the box squat exercise.European journal of sport science · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to i) determine the load-velocity relationship in the seated chest press in older adults, ii) compare the magnitude of the relationship between peak and mean velocity with the relative load, and iii) analyze the differences between sexes in movement velocity for each relative load in the chest press. MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty-two older adults (17 women and 15 men; 79.6±7.7 years) performed a chest press progressive loading test up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM). The fastest peak and mean velocity reached with each weight were analyzed. Quadratic equations were developed for both sexes and the effectiveness of the regression model was analyzed through a residual analysis. The equations were cross-validated, considering the holdout method. The independent samples t-test analyzed i) the differences in the magnitude of the relationship between peak and mean velocity with the relative load and ii) the differences between sexes in the peak and mean velocity for each relative load.
resultsIt was possible to observe very strong quadratic load-velocity relationships in the seated chest press in women (peak velocity: r2 = 0.97, standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 4.5% 1RM; mean velocity: r2 = 0.96, SEE = 5.3% 1RM) and men (peak velocity: r2 = 0.98, SEE = 3.8% 1RM; mean velocity: r2 = 0.98, SEE = 3.8% 1RM) without differences (p>0.05) in the magnitude of the relationship between peak and mean velocity with the relative load. Furthermore, there was no overfitting in the regression models due to the high and positive correlation coefficients (r = 0.98-0.99). Finally, men presented higher (p<0.001) lifting velocities than women in almost all relative loads, except for 95-100% 1RM (p>0.05).
conclusionMeasuring repetition velocity during the seated chest press is an objective approach to estimating the relative load in older adults. Furthermore, given the velocity differences between older women and men at submaximal loads, it is recommended to use sex-specific equations to estimate and prescribe the relative loads in older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.