ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Load-velocity profiles in machine-based exercises: comparing trained college students with recreationally active and sedentary middle-aged and older adults.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the reliability, validity and efficacy of using group or individualized load-velocity profiles (LVPs) in four machine-based exercises, involving trained college students and middle-aged and older adults (recreationally active and sedentary).
methodThirty students and fifty middle-aged/older adults completed two sessions. Mean concentric velocity (MV) of leg press, lateral pull down, knee extension, and chest press was assessed at 40–80% of estimated one-repetition maximum (1RM). Both sessions’ data assessed test-retest reliability, while first-session MV data validated predicted velocities using individual/group regression models. Reliability and validity were evaluated via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), standard error of the estimate (SEE), and Coefficient of Variation of the RMSE (CV-RMSE).
resultsMV showed good test-retest reliability across all exercises from 40%1RM to 80%1RM (ICC > 0.77, SEM ≤ 0.05 m/s). Validity of individual LVPs varied from moderate to nearly perfect, with acceptable validity for all groups (R2 > 0.81, ICC > 0.90, SEE: 0.01–0.07 m/s, CV-RMSE: 1.56–14.89%). Validity of group averaged LVPs (linear/nonlinear) was mostly unacceptable for recreationally active middle-aged/older adults (except chest press) and trained college students (ICC ≤ 0.74, SEE: 0.08–0.20 m/s, CV-RMSE: 15.09–33.33%), yet showed moderate predictive validity for sedentary middle-aged/older adults in most exercises except knee extension (ICC > 0.75 for leg press, lateral pull-down, and chest press; SEE: 0.07–0.13 m/s, CV-RMSE: 14.58–23.21%). APPLICATION: For high precision, individualized LVPs are recommended. For sedentary middle-aged and older adults with lower precision needs, group-averaged values may be considered as a less optimal alternative for screening purposes only, with the exception of knee extension where individualized profiling is essential.
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.