This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Murcia Humanity]

On: 28 February 2014, At: 01:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sports Sciences

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20

Imposing a pause between the eccentric and

concentric phases increases the reliability of
isoinertial strength assessments
a b c
Jesús G. Pallarés , Luis Sánchez-Medina , Carlos Esteban Pérez , Ernesto De La Cruz-
d a
Sánchez & Ricardo Mora-Rodriguez
a
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain
b
Studies, Research and Sports Medicine Centre, Government of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain
c
Sports Medicine Centre, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
d
Department of Physical Activity and Sport, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain
Published online: 28 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Jesús G. Pallarés, Luis Sánchez-Medina, Carlos Esteban Pérez, Ernesto De La Cruz-Sánchez & Ricardo
Mora-Rodriguez (2014): Imposing a pause between the eccentric and concentric phases increases the reliability of isoinertial
strength assessments, Journal of Sports Sciences

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.889844

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Sports Sciences, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.889844

Imposing a pause between the eccentric and concentric phases

increases the reliability of isoinertial strength assessments

JESÚS G. PALLARÉS1, LUIS SÁNCHEZ-MEDINA2, CARLOS ESTEBAN PÉREZ3,

ERNESTO DE LA CRUZ-SÁNCHEZ4 & RICARDO MORA-RODRIGUEZ1
1
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain, 2Studies, Research and Sports Medicine
Centre, Government of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain, 3Sports Medicine Centre, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain and
4
Department of Physical Activity and Sport, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

(Accepted 22 January 2014)

Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014

Abstract
This study analysed the effect of imposing a pause between the eccentric and concentric phases on the biological within-
subject variation of velocity- and power–load isoinertial assessments. Seventeen resistance-trained athletes undertook a
progressive loading test in the bench press (BP) and squat (SQ) exercises. Two trials at each load up to the one-repetition
maximum (1RM) were performed using 2 techniques executed in random order: with (stop) and without (standard) a 2-s
pause between the eccentric and concentric phases of each repetition. The stop technique resulted in a significantly lower
coefficient of variation for the whole load–velocity relationship compared to the standard one, in both BP (2.9% vs. 4.1%; P
= 0.02) and SQ (2.9% vs. 3.9%; P = 0.01). Test–retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were r = 0.61–0.98 for the
standard and r = 0.76–0.98 for the stop technique. Bland–Altman analysis showed that the error associated with the
standard technique was 37.9% (BP) and 57.5% higher (SQ) than that associated with the stop technique. The biological
within-subject variation is significantly reduced when a pause is imposed between the eccentric and concentric phases.
Other relevant variables associated to the load–velocity and load–power relationships such as the contribution of the
propulsive phase and the load that maximises power output remained basically unchanged.

Keywords: resistance training, muscle strength, maximal power output, bench press, full squat

Introduction Ortega, & Fernández-Elías, 2012; Pallarés, López-

Samanes, et al., 2013). It is well known that, at the
The relatively small and highly specific adaptations
elite level, very small changes in performance may
associated with high-performance training call for
largely impact the athletes’ chances of winning
valid, reliable and sensitive methods of assessment
(Hopkins, Hawley, & Burke, 1999). For instance,
(Reilly, Morris, & Whyte, 2009). Several recent stu-
McGuigan and Kane (2004) found that a change in
dies conducted on strength-trained athletes have
performance as little as ~1.2% could change the
reported minor (2–5%; effect size, ES = 0.20–0.85)
chance of winning a medal in elite Olympic weigh-
but significant muscle strength and/or power output
tlifters. Due to the small effect sizes and per cent
enhancements not only against the one-repetition
changes that can be induced on the neuromuscular
maximum (1RM) load but also at different submax-
performance of well-trained athletes, it seems impor-
imal loading intensities (% 1RM). These perfor-
tant to minimise the measurement error associated
mance improvements were obtained, for instance,
with currently used assessment protocols, mainly
following different interventions such as short-term
through an optimisation of the concurrent validity
resistance training programmes (García-Pallarés,
and the within subject variation of the measure
Sánchez-Medina, Carrasco, Díaz, & Izquierdo,
(Currell & Jeukendrup, 2008; Hopkins, 2000).
2009; Izquierdo-Gabarren et al., 2010), acute inges-
Analysis of validity in isoinertial strength assess-
tion of ergogenic aids (Astorino, Martin,
ments is complex, owing to the inevitable presence of
Schachtsiek, Wong, & Ng, 2011; Pallarés,
error in the criterion value (Hopkins, 2000), and espe-
Fernández-Elías, et al., 2013) or manipulation of
cially due to the analysis procedures and indirect cal-
time of day (i.e. circadian rhythm effect) (Mora-
culations of the estimated variables (Cormie, McBride,
Rodríguez, García Pallarés, López-Samanes,

Correspondence: Jesús G. Pallarés, Exercise Physiology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain. E-mail: jesus.garcia.pallares@gmail.com

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 2 J. G. Pallarés et al.
& McCaulley, 2007). On the other hand, the biological
within-subject variation, i.e. the differences between
trials under the same conditions for each participant,
is relatively easy to calculate and of great importance to
confidently interpret the observed changes as those
that are outside (real change) or within the typical
error limits (Hopkins, 2000; Sheppard, Cormack,
Taylor, McGuigan, & Newton, 2008).
The reproducibility of the 1RM strength
(Faigenbaum et al., 2012; Levinger et al., 2009;
Ritti-Dias, Avelar, Salvador, & Cyrino, 2011; Seo
et al., 2012; Tagesson & Kvist, 2007) and nRM
tests (e.g. 8RM or 3RM) (Abdul-Hameed, Rangra,
Shareef, & Hussain, 2012; McCurdy, Langford,
Cline, Doscher, & Hoff, 2004; Taylor & Fletcher,
2012) have been analysed for several resistance train-
ing exercises in populations of varied levels of phy-
Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
sical fitness. Nevertheless, the reproducibility of
isoinertial strength measures (e.g. velocity and
power output) obtained against submaximal loads
have received only minor attention (Comfort, 2013;
Izquierdo, Hakkinen, González Badillo, Ibáñez, &
Gorostiaga, 2002; Sheppard et al., 2008; Stock,
Beck, DeFreitas, & Dillon, 2011). Although the
reliability associated to the equipment or measuring
devices used to assess the velocity- and power–load
relationships (mainly linear position or velocity
transducers and force platforms) has been reported
to be very high (coefficient of variation (CV) < 4%;
and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > 0.95)
(Hori et al., 2009; Sánchez-Medina & González-
Badillo, 2011), the biological within-subject varia-
tion of this type of isoinertial assessments needs
clarification. It thus seems pertinent to analyse dif-
ferent methodological strategies to try to minimise
the unwanted variability in test results.
To our knowledge, the retest reliability has been
analysed only during standard exercises (e.g. squat
(SQ), bench press (BP), pull-down and row) consist-
ing of an eccentric phase immediately followed by a
concentric muscle action (Comfort, 2013;
Faigenbaum et al., 2012; McCurdy et al., 2004;
Ritti-Dias et al., 2011; Tagesson & Kvist, 2007;
Taylor & Fletcher, 2012) or during Olympic weigh-
tlifting movements such as the clean which combines
a concentric (first pull), a countermovement
eccentric (scoop) and a final concentric action (sec-
ond pull) (Comfort, 2013; Faigenbaum et al., 2012).
The combination of rapid lengthening and shortening
muscle actions has been termed the stretch-shorten-
ing cycle and has been shown to increase the neuro-
muscular performance of the subsequent concentric
action (Komi, 1984). However, the exact mechan-
isms underlying the stretch-shortening cycle are not
yet fully understood and keep being the subject of
much debate and controversy. The concentric perfor-
mance enhancement has been typically ascribed to
the utilisation of elastic energy stored in the muscle
series elastic components in combination with reflex-
ively induced neural input (Komi, 1984; Wilson,
Elliott, & Wood, 1991), but other factors such as a
“higher active muscle state” and potentiation of the
contractile machinery are also thought to interact to
produce such enhancement (Cronin, McNair, &
Marshall, 2001). The contribution of the stretch-
shortening cycle to enhanced neuromuscular con-
centric performance seems to be greatly influenced
by the movement velocity and force production devel-
oped during the eccentric phase and the duration of
transition (coupling time) between phases (González-
Badillo & Marques, 2010; Wilson, Elliott, & Wood,
1991), which are aspects that have not been taken into
account in previous reliability studies.
It is believed that the transition time has to be very
brief in order to obtain a performance potentiation in
the subsequent concentric phase, as typically occurs in
running, jumping or hopping actions (Komi, 2000).
However, it has been shown that in resistance training
exercises such as the BP and SQ, a certain degree of
performance enhancement still exists even after con-
siderably long (1–2 s) transition times between the
eccentric and concentric phases (Cronin et al., 2001;
Thys, Faraggiana, & Margaria, 1972; Wilson, Wood,
& Elliott, 1991). A distinction of rapid and slow
stretch-shortening cycle actions has also been pro-
posed (Wadden, Button, Kibele, & Behm, 2012). As
pointed out by Sale and Norman (1982), variation in
the degree to which the stretch-shortening cycle is
employed will have a marked effect on the outcome
of isoinertial strength tests. In practice, the simplest
approach is to attempt to eliminate the stretch-short-
ening cycle effect entirely, which can be accomplished
by introducing a pronounced pause between the
eccentric and concentric phases of the movement
(Sale & Norman, 1982).
Therefore, the main purpose of the present study
was to compare the biological within-subject variation
of 2 different execution techniques (with and without
a pause between the eccentric and concentric phases)
in the BP and full SQ exercises. A secondary aim was
to analyse whether the pause (STOP) technique vs.
the standard (STRD) technique could have a distinct
influence on (i) 1RM strength, (ii) the contribution of
the propulsive phase (Sánchez-Medina, Pérez, &
González-Badillo, 2010) to the whole concentric
duration and (iii) the load–velocity and load–power
relationships.
Methods
Participants
Seventeen resistance-trained men volunteered to
participate in this study (age 25.0 ± 3.9 years, body

mass 81.4 ± 5.8 kg, height 178.5 ± 8.3 cm, body fat
11.4 ± 3.2%). Their 1RM strength for the BP and
full SQ exercises was 92.2 ± 11.9 kg and 100.4 ±
21.8 kg (i.e. 1.13 ± 0.15 and 1.23 ± 0.26 normalised
per kg of body mass), respectively. Participants’
weight training experience ranged from 7 to beyond
15 years (2–3 sessions per week). No physical limita-
tions or musculoskeletal injuries that could affect
testing were reported. The study, which was con-
ducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki,
was approved by the Bioethics Commission of the
University of Murcia, and after being informed of
the purpose and experimental procedures, partici-
pants signed a written informed consent form.
Isoinertial testing procedures
Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Participants underwent 5 familiarisation sessions
before the start of the study to avoid the bias of
progressive learning. For each participant, testing
was conducted over 3 sessions separated by 48 h.
The first session was used for body composition
assessment and served as a final familiarisation and
practice session for the 2 execution techniques.
After 2 full rest days and a standardised warm-up,
the individual load–velocity and load–power rela-
tionships were determined by means of a progressive
loading test up to the 1RM for both the techniques
(STRD and STOP). Two different sessions, one for
BP and another one for SQ, were performed in
random order. All isoinertial testing protocols
begun at the same PM hour (17:00 h) in order to
normalise circadian rhythm effects on neuromuscu-
lar performance (Mora-Rodríguez et al., 2012).
Warm-up consisted of 5 min of stationary cycling
at a self-selected easy pace, 5 min of static stretching
and joint mobilisation exercises, followed by 1 set of
5 repetitions of each execution technique with a
fixed load of 20 kg.
In each exercise session, participants performed 4
trials at each load in random order, 2 trials using
STRD and 2 using STOP execution techniques,
always using 3-min interrepetition rests. For both
exercise sessions, initial load was set at 20 kg and
was progressively increased in 15 kg increments until
the attained mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was
lower than 0.5 m · s−1 for BP or 0.7 m · s−1 for
SQ. Thereafter, load was adjusted with smaller
increments (5 down to 2.5 kg). The heaviest load
(±2.5 kg) that each participant could properly lift
was considered to be his 1RM in the respective
exercise. An average of 7.5 ± 1.9 for full SQ and
8.5 ± 1.7 increasing loads for BP were used in the
progression to 1RM.
In the BP, participants lay supine on a flat bench,
with their feet resting flat on the floor and hands
Reliability in isoinertial strength assessments 3
placed on the barbell slightly wider (5–7 cm) than
shoulder width. The position on the bench was care-
fully adjusted so that the vertical projection of the
barbell corresponded with each participant’s inter-
mammary line. This individual position on the
bench as well as grip widths was measured so that
they could be reproduced on every lift. Participants
were not allowed to bounce the barbell off their
chests or raise the shoulders or trunk off the bench.
In the full SQ exercise, participants started from the
upright position with the knees and hips fully
extended, stance approximately shoulder width
apart and the barbell resting across the back at the
level of the acromion. Stance width and feet position
were individually adjusted and carefully replicated
on every lift for both execution techniques.
Participants were not allowed to raise their heels off
the ground, or the barbell off the shoulders, at any
time during the concentric or eccentric phases of the
movement. If this occurred, the trial was rejected
and subsequently repeated. In both the execution
techniques, participants were required to always per-
form the concentric phase of either BP or SQ in an
explosive manner, at maximal intended velocity. The
eccentric phase was, however, performed at a con-
trolled mean velocity (0.45–0.65 m · s−1). This had
been previously practised in the familiarisation ses-
sions and was accomplished with the aid of the linear
velocity transducer (described later) that registered
the kinematics of every repetition and whose custo-
mised software provided visual and auditory feed-
back in real time so that participants could adjust
their eccentric velocity to the required range. If a
repetition failed to meet this requirement, it was
automatically discarded by the software and repeated
after a 3-min rest.
Standard technique (STRD)
BP: the barbell was lowered in a continuous motion
until it contacted the chest, and it was then immedi-
ately lifted back until the elbows were fully extended,
i.e. a “touch and go” movement was used. SQ: each
participant descended in a continuous motion until the
top of the thighs got below the horizontal (ground)
plane, the posterior thighs and shanks making contact
with one another, then immediately reversed motion
and ascended back to the upright position.
Stop technique (STOP)
Two telescopic bar holders with a precision scale
(±1 cm) were placed at the left and right sides of
the Smith machine used during the execution of
both BP and SQ exercises in order to (i) precisely
replicate the individual eccentric range of movement
 4 J. G. Pallarés et al.
between trials and (ii) impose a pause or delay prior
to the subsequent concentric action. In the BP, the
bar holders were positioned so that the barbell
stopped exactly 1 cm above each participant’s
chest. In the SQ, the bar holders were set at each
participant’s deep squatting position defined as that
when thighs and shanks contact. After lowering the
barbell at the required velocity (0.45–0.65 m · s−1),
participants stopped for 2 s at the bar holders
(momentarily releasing the weight but keeping con-
tact with the barbell), and thereafter they performed
a purely concentric push at maximal intended
velocity.
Measurement equipment and data acquisition
A Smith machine (Multipower Fitness Line, Peroga,
Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Murcia, Spain) with no counterweight mechanism
was used for all testing sessions. This machine allows
only vertical displacement of the barbell along a fixed
pathway, and its guide rods and bearings are specially
designed to ensure a smooth operation. A linear velo-
city transducer (T-Force System®, Ergotech, Murcia,
Spain) with a sampling frequency of 1,000 Hz auto-
matically determined the eccentric and concentric
phases of every repetition as well as the propulsive
phase, defined as that portion of the concentric
phase during which barbell acceleration is greater
than acceleration due to gravity (Sánchez-Medina
et al., 2010). It also provided visual and auditory
velocity feedback and stored data on disc for analysis.
Reliability (ICC = 1.00, CV = 0.57%) of this system
has been recently reported elsewhere (Sánchez-
Medina & González-Badillo, 2011). Power output
was calculated as power applied to the barbell in
both exercises. Since a force platform was not used,
we could not obtain a valid measure of force applied to
the barbell-and-body system centre of mass, which
would have been a more appropriate measure for a
lower-body exercise such as the SQ (Dugan, Doyle,
Humphries, Hasson, & Newton, 2004). Adding body
mass (or body mass minus shank mass, as suggested
by Dugan et al., 2004) to barbell mass and multiplying
this value by barbell acceleration to obtain force would
have resulted in an overestimation of power output
values since it has been shown that barbell velocity
overestimates the velocity of the centre of mass during
lower-body resistance exercise (Lake, Lauder, &
Smith, 2012). MPV, mean propulsive power (MPP)
and peak power (PP) were calculated as reported else-
where (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2010).
Statistical analyses
Standard statistical methods were used for the cal-
culation of means, standard deviations (SD) and
Pearson product–moment correlation coefficients
(r). Relationships between relative load (% 1RM)
and MPV and MPP were established by fitting sec-
ond-order polynomials to data. The test–retest relia-
bility of the velocity developed at each load (30–
100% 1RM) was assessed using ICC (model 2,1)
(Stock et al., 2011; Weir, 2005) and the size of the
correlation evaluated as follows: r < 0.7 low; 0.7 ≤
r < 0.9 moderate and r ≥ 0.9 high (Vincent, 2005).
The error associated with barbell velocity testing was
examined using the CV between trials (1st vs. 2nd
repetition) for a given technique (STRD and
STOP). A 2-way (technique × load) analysis of var-
iance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences in
velocity, power and CV values between execution
techniques at the different loads (30–100% 1RM).
A Scheffé post-hoc test was used to identify the
source of any significant differences. Bland–Altman
plots were used to assess measuring agreement and
repeatability of MPV for both techniques (Bland &
Altman, 1999). Analyses were performed using
GraphPad Prism 6.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc.,
CA, USA). Significance was accepted at the P ≤
0.05 level.
Results
Reproducibility of barbell velocity measures
Test–retest ICCs for MPV attained against the dif-
ferent loads analysed (30–100% 1RM) were statisti-
cally significant in all cases (P < 0.05), with
correlation sizes ranging from moderate to high for
BP STRD (r = 0.787–0.976), BP STOP (r = 0.783–
0.972) and SQ STOP (r = 0.757–0.970), whereas
the ICC for SQ STRD ranged from low to high (r =
0.606–0.970) (Figure 1). The CV for the whole
load–velocity relationship was significantly lower for
the STOP compared to the STRD technique in both
the BP (2.9% vs. 4.1%; P = 0.028) and SQ (2.9% vs.
3.9%; P = 0.010) exercises (Figure 1).
The Bland–Altman analysis (Figure 2) showed
systematic bias of −0.01 ± 0.04, 0.00 ± 0.03,
−0.01 ± 0.06 and 0.00 ± 0.03 m · s−1 for BP
STRD, BP STOP, SQ STRD and SQ STOP,
respectively. The error associated to the STRD tech-
nique was 37.9 and 57.5% higher than that asso-
ciated to the STOP technique in the BP and SQ,
respectively.
1RM strength
No significant differences were detected between
the 2 techniques (STRD vs. STOP) for 1RM
strength in each exercise: 1RM BP STRD =
92.1 ± 12.1 kg; 1RM BP STOP = 89.1 ± 11.1

Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Figure 1. Reproducibility of barbell velocity measures for (A) BP
and (B) SQ exercises. ICC(2,1) and CV values for each load (%
1RM) and for the load–velocity relationship as a whole (All) for
the 2 execution techniques (STRD and STOP) are reported.
Note: *Significantly lower (P ≤ 0.05) than STRD.
kg; 1RM SQ STRD = 97.2 ± 16.8 kg; 1RM SQ
STOP = 90.3 ± 14.7 kg.
Relationship between relative load and velocity
After plotting MPV against % 1RM and fitting a
second-order polynomial to all data points, a very
close relationship between these 2 variables was
found for BP STRD (R2 = 0.96), BP STOP (R2 =
0.98), SQ STRD (R2 = 0.95) and SQ STOP (R2 =
0.95) (Figure 3).
Contribution of the propulsive and braking phases to
different loading conditions
Table I shows the contribution of the propulsive
phase to the total concentric duration from 30 to
100% 1RM, in 5% increments. Calculations were
made using the high correlation that exists between
load (% 1RM) and relative contribution of the pro-
pulsive phase to the total concentric duration for
both exercises and techniques (BP STRD: r =
0.82, P < 0.001; BP STOP: r = 0.84, P < 0.001;
SQ STRD: r = 0.78, P < 0.001; SQ STOP: r = 0.86,
P < 0.001). The magnitude of the braking phase was
very similar between the STRD and STOP techni-
ques for both the exercises, with differences not
exceeding 2% of the total concentric duration
(Table I).
Reliability in isoinertial strength assessments 5
The load that maximises barbell power output (Pmax load)
The load that maximised the mechanical power out-
put applied to the barbell was found to be dependent
on the outcome variable used (MPP or PP) and was
statistically different between exercises (P < 0.001)
but not different between techniques (STRD vs.
STOP). Moreover, the power output attained with
the Pmax load was not statistically significantly differ-
ent for a broad large range of relative loads for both
execution techniques and exercises (Figure 4).
Discussion
The main finding of this study was that the biological
within-subject variation for the isoinertial resistance
training exercises analysed was significantly reduced
when imposing a pause between the eccentric and
concentric phases of each repetition, while other
relevant mechanical variables associated to the
load–velocity and load–power profiles such as the
Pmax load remained basically unchanged. We con-
sider these findings to have important practical appli-
cation since the reduction of the measurement error
associated to the STOP technique could result in
more reliable isoinertial strength assessments
which, in turn, may allow sport scientists and
strength and conditioning professionals greater con-
fidence in the interpretation of their testing and
training results.
Unlike the 1RM and nRM strength tests
(Faigenbaum et al., 2012; Levinger et al., 2009;
McCurdy et al., 2004; Ritti-Dias et al., 2011; Seo
et al., 2012; Tagesson & Kvist, 2007; Taylor &
Fletcher, 2012), this is the first study that has ana-
lysed the reliability of movement velocity through-
out the entire load–velocity relationship using
commonly used resistance training exercises for
the upper-(BP) and lower-body (SQ) while manip-
ulating some of the mechanisms involved in the
testing protocol in order to reduce the measure-
ment error. As shown in Figure 1, the use of the
STOP technique resulted in higher ICC and lower
CV values than the STRD technique throughout
the load–velocity curve (30–100%) in both exer-
cises. When comparing the CV values for barbell
velocity attained against all loads combined, the
differences reached statistical significance. Even
though the STRD technique was performed using
a strict and well-controlled protocol (special atten-
tion was paid to perform the eccentric phase at a
controlled mean velocity of 0.45–0.65 m · s−1), our
results suggest that the allegedly contribution of the
stretch-shortening cycle increases the biological
within-subject variation of the whole load–velocity
curve in the BP and SQ exercises. The fact that the
 6 J. G. Pallarés et al.
Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Figure 2. Bland–Altman plots for barbell velocity reliability analysis of the 2 exercises (BP and SQ) and execution techniques (STRD and
STOP). See text for details.
stretch-shortening cycle introduces a complicating
variability to the results of isoinertial strength tests
was already noticed by Sale and Norman (1982),
but, to our knowledge, the extent of that variability
had not been previously quantified.
Because it was not the purpose of this study to delve
into the mechanisms responsible for the enhancement
of performance observed when a concentric action is
preceded by an eccentric one, we did not monitor
acute musculotendinous changes (e.g. via dynamic
ultrasound), and no EMG was used to determine if
neurological potentiation occurred due to stimulation
of the muscle spindle. Therefore, the involvement of
the stretch-shortening cycle during the execution tech-
niques used in the present study is merely speculative.
Nevertheless, a considerable body of research (Cronin
et al., 2001; Thys, Cavagna, & Margaria, 1975; Thys
et al., 1972; Wilson, Elliott, & Wood, 1991; Wilson,
Wood, & Elliott, 1991) has assumed the participation
of the stretch-shortening cycle in the BP and SQ exer-
cises. Wilson, Wood, and Elliott (1991) showed that
the optimal stiffness in a rebound bench press lift at

Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Figure 3. Relationships between relative load (% 1RM) and MPV
for both the execution techniques (STRD and STOP) in (A) BP
and (B) SQ exercises. Pairs of load–velocity data were obtained
from the 68 isoinertial progressive loading tests performed.
95% 1RM was a resonant-compliant series elastic
component. It has also been observed that augmenta-
tion due to prior stretch only enhances the initial part
of the concentric phase when movement amplitude is
large, such as in the BP and SQ (Thys et al., 1975;
Wilson, Elliott, & Wood, 1991; Wilson, Wood, &
Elliott, 1991). Cronin et al. (2001) found that the
magnitude and temporal characteristics of that
enhancement differed across loads. Even though the
spatial and temporal characteristics of these 2 exercises
(large eccentric phases and coupling times together
with relatively slow movements) greatly differ from
the time-restricted, more explosive actions of running,
jumping and hopping (those activities typically ana-
lysed in stretch-shortening cycle studies), there clearly
has to exist some mechanism responsible for the
enhancement of concentric performance which is still
evident, e.g., even after an average imposed delay of
1.27 s in the BP (Wilson, Elliott, & Elliott, 1991).
Reliability in isoinertial strength assessments 7
The present reliability results for the STRD tech-
nique are in line with recent findings from Stock
et al. (2011) who also assessed the test–retest repro-
ducibility of the whole load–velocity curve (10–90%
1RM) in a sample of resistance-trained athletes.
These authors found that the ICC2.1 ranged from
0.811 to 0.572, and the standard error of the mean
(SEM) ranged from 3.1 to 12.6% for peak barbell
velocity measures. In a recent study, Comfort (2013)
assessed the within- and between-session reliability
of power, force and rate of force development in the
power clean exercise against a fixed load of 70%
1RM, also using resistance-trained participants.
Comfort (2013) reported high within- (ICC ≥
0.969) and between-session (ICC ≥ 0.988) reliability
values. Sheppard et al. (2008) evaluated the interday
reliability of several kinematic and dynamic mea-
sures during countermovement jumps. These
authors found that reliability (CV = 3.0–9.5%; ICC
= 0.96–0.25) improved (i.e. lower CV and higher
ICC values) as loads increased, which are results
that seem to contradict our findings and those of
Stock et al. (2011). In the present study and in that
of Stock et al. (2011), the ICC and the CV or SEM
showed a tendency to worsen as the load increased
for both execution techniques, mainly from 80 to
100% 1RM (Figure 1). Stock et al. (2011) argued
that the increased variability at higher loads could be
related to the impossibility of the measuring devices
to correctly measure very low barbell velocities. We
are however confident that our measuring equip-
ment is capable of measuring mean velocities in a
range of 0.05 to 3.00 m · s-1 with high precision
(Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011). The
lower reliability values observed against the highest
loads (80–100% 1RM) may be related to the fact
that the mean concentric velocities developed against
these loads are very low (~0.20–0.50 m · s−1 for BP
and ~0.30–0.60 m · s−1 for SQ; Table I), and there-
fore a difference in mean velocity as small as ~0.03–
0.05 m · s−1 between trials would mean a consider-
able change in relative terms. Our findings seem to
suggest that it is more advisable to assess perfor-
mance changes against submaximal loads (≤70%
1RM) since the associated error would be reduced.
Although the analysis of the CV and ICC values
would allow us to compare the biological variability
between the 2 execution techniques (STRD and
STOP), several authors have pointed out that these
2 statistics may not adequately estimate the actual
variability of the measure (Hopkins, 2000;
Ludbrook, 2002). The ICC measures the strength
of a relation between 2 variables, not the agreement
between them (Bland & Altman, 1995). In this
regard, the ICC analysis of both the execution tech-
niques shows that only a similar behaviour was found
 Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014

8
J. G. Pallarés et al.

Table I. Mean propulsive velocity (m · s−1) attained against each relative load (% 1RM) and relative contribution of the propulsive and braking phases to the total concentric duration in the BP and
SQ exercises using both the execution techniques (STRD and STOP) (n = 17).

BP Full SQ
STRD STOP STRD STOP

Load (% Propulsive Braking Propulsive Braking Propulsive Braking Propulsive Braking

1RM) MPV (m · s−1) phase (%) phase (%) MPV (m · s−1) phase (%) phase (%) MPV (m · s−1) phase (%) phase (%) MPV (m · s−1) phase (%) phase (%)

30 1.43 ± 0.12 73 27 1.20 ± 0.07* 75 25 1.40 ± 0.09 80 20 1.11 ± 0.07* 80 20

35 1.33 ± 0.12 75 25 1.12 ± 0.07* 77 23 1.34 ± 0.09 81 19 1.06 ± 0.06* 82 18
40 1.22 ± 0.11 78 22 1.04 ± 0.07* 79 21 1.28 ± 0.09 83 17 1.01 ± 0.06* 83 17
45 1.13 ± 0.10 80 20 0.96 ± 0.07* 81 19 1.21 ± 0.09 84 16 0.96 ± 0.06* 85 15
50 1.03 ± 0.09 82 18 0.88 ± 0.07* 83 17 1.14 ± 0.09 86 14 0.91 ± 0.06* 86 14
55 0.93 ± 0.09 85 15 0.81 ± 0.06* 85 15 1.07 ± 0.08 87 13 0.86 ± 0.06* 88 12
60 0.84 ± 0.08 87 13 0.73 ± 0.06* 87 13 1.00 ± 0.08 89 11 0.81 ± 0.06* 89 11
65 0.75 ± 0.07 90 10 0.66 ± 0.06* 89 11 0.93 ± 0.08 90 10 0.76 ± 0.06* 91 9
70 0.66 ± 0.07 92 8 0.59 ± 0.06* 91 9 0.85 ± 0.08 92 8 0.71 ± 0.06* 92 8
75 0.58 ± 0.06 94 6 0.53 ± 0.05* 93 7 0.74 ± 0.08 93 7 0.66 ± 0.06* 94 6
80 0.50 ± 0.06 97 3 0.46 ± 0.05 95 5 0.67 ± 0.08 95 5 0.61 ± 0.05* 95 5
85 0.42 ± 0.05 99 1 0.40 ± 0.04 97 3 0.61 ± 0.09 96 4 0.56 ± 0.06* 97 3
90 0.34 ± 0.05 100 0 0.34 ± 0.04 98 2 0.54 ± 0.09 98 2 0.51 ± 0.06* 98 2
95 0.26 ± 0.05 100 0 0.28 ± 0.03 100 0 0.45 ± 0.10 99 1 0.46 ± 0.06 99 1
100 0.19 ± 0.06 100 0 0.22 ± 0.03 100 0 0.37 ± 0.11 100 0 0.39 ± 0.07 100 0

Note:*Significant differences (P < 0.05) between STRD and STOP execution techniques.

Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Figure 4. Load–power relationships for the BP and SQ exercises for the 2 execution techniques (STRD and STOP) analysed, using MPP
(A, B) or PP (C, D) as the outcome measures.
Note: Statistically significant differences between execution techniques at each load: *P < 0.01; †not statistically significantly different from
the Pmax value.
between different response pairs but does not neces-
sarily show an agreement between measures.
Likewise, the CV shows the extent of variability
(standard deviation) in relation to the mean, but
this value is independent of the unit and the mea-
surement scale (Hopkins, 2000; Ludbrook, 2002).
This is the reason why we chose to conduct an
additional analysis of the reliability of the measure
using Bland–Altman plots (Figure 2). This proce-
dure has been proposed to check whether the
observed variability is related to the size of the char-
acteristic being measured in order to avoid the afore-
mentioned limitations of the ICC and CV. The
results of this statistical technique allowed us to
confirm better reliability for the STOP compared to
the STRD technique. Thus, the systematic error was
reduced by 37.9 and 57.5%, for BP and SQ, respec-
tively, when using the STOP technique.
Therefore, in order to reduce to a minimum
unwanted variability in the results of isoinertial
Reliability in isoinertial strength assessments 9
strength assessments, it seems a good practice to
impose a pause of at least 2 s between the eccentric
and concentric phases of commonly used resistance
training exercises such as the BP and SQ. We must,
however, acknowledge that performing repetitions
with a prolonged pause between the eccentric and
concentric phases is not a common training practice,
and it may reduce the ecological validity of the mea-
sures. In the assessment of the athlete, there is
always a compromise between the high reliability
and low ecological validity of laboratory tests and
the low reliability and high validity of field-based
methods (Reilly et al., 2009), but we are of the
opinion that isoinertial strength tests and protocols
should be strictly standardised to better be able to
isolate the often small but practically significant
training effects consequent to resistance training.
This was also the reason why we chose to use a
Smith machine for the assessment protocols; even
though it restricts movement to only the vertical
 10 J. G. Pallarés et al.
plane, its use provides more consistent and safe
measurements.
The extremely close relationships observed
between relative load (% 1RM) and MPV for both
exercises and execution techniques in the present
study (R2 = 0.95–0.98; Figure 3) make it possible
to determine with considerable precision which %
1RM is being used provided that the first repetition
of a set is performed with maximal voluntary velo-
city. Furthermore, if repetition velocity is habitually
monitored, it is possible to determine whether the
proposed load (kg) for a given training session truly
represents the real effort (% 1RM) that was
intended. The present findings, together with pre-
vious results for the BP and prone bench pull exer-
cises (González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010;
Sánchez-Medina, González-Badillo, Pérez, &
Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Pallarés, 2013), emphasise the practical importance
of considering movement velocity for monitoring
training load in resistance exercise. Nevertheless,
significantly lower velocities are developed for a
given relative load (especially for light and medium
loads) for the STOP compared to the STRD tech-
nique in both the BP and SQ exercises (Table I).
This implies that strength and conditioning coaches
should pay close attention to the exact testing pro-
tocols used when assessing the load–velocity rela-
tionship. In order to confidently interpret training
or testing results, both exercise (Sánchez-Medina
et al., 2013) and the particular execution technique
used (STOP or STRD) should be taken into account
since they greatly influence the velocity developed
against a given relative load.
When assessing muscle strength and power in
isoinertial conditions, referring the mean mechanical
values to the propulsive phase, rather than to the
entire concentric phase, avoids underestimating an
individual’s true neuromuscular potential, especially
when lifting light and medium loads (Sánchez-
Medina et al., 2010). As shown in Table I, the
magnitude of the braking phase depends on the rela-
tive load to be lifted (% 1RM) and the exercise being
performed, but it does not seem to depend on the
execution technique (STRD or STOP).
Furthermore, the results of this study strongly sup-
port previous research showing that intermediate
loads maximise the mean mechanical power output
in the main resistance training exercises (Izquierdo
et al., 2002; Pallarés, Fernández-Elías, et al., 2013;
Sánchez-Medina et al., 2010, 2013), while it also
becomes apparent that the different outcome mea-
sures that can be chosen to express power output
greatly influence the determination of the Pmax load
(% 1RM) (Sánchez-Medina et al., 2010, 2013).
However, the selection of the exercise technique
(STOP vs. STRD) does not seem to influence the
determination of the Pmax load or affect the relatively
broad range of loads at which power output is not
statistically significantly different than that at Pmax
(Figure 4). These findings make us wonder whether
perhaps excessive attention has been paid to the
question of identifying a single “optimal” load for
maximising power output.
In conclusion, the main findings of the present
study were that (i) the biological within-subject varia-
tion for the BP and SQ exercises is significantly
reduced when a pause is imposed between the
eccentric and concentric phases of each repetition;
(ii) lower reliability in barbell velocity was observed
for loads ≥80% 1RM; (iii) each execution technique
(STOP vs. STRD) has a distinctive load (%
1RM)–velocity relationship that should be taken into
account in order to confidently interpret isoinertial
training or testing results and (iv) the selection of a
given exercise technique does not seem to influence
the determination of the loads that maximise barbell
power output (the Pmax and those around it).
References
Abdul-Hameed, U., Rangra, P., Shareef, M. Y., & Hussain, M. E.
(2012). Reliability of 1-repetition maximum estimation for
upper and lower body muscular strength measurement in
untrained middle aged type 2 diabetic patients. Asian Journal
of Sports Medicine, 3(4), 267–273.
Astorino, T. A., Martin, B. J., Schachtsiek, L., Wong, K., & Ng,
K. (2011). Minimal effect of acute caffeine ingestion on intense
resistance training performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 25(6), 1752–1758.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Comparing methods of
measurement: Why plotting difference against standard
method is misleading. The Lancet, 346(8982), 1085–1087.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1999). Measuring agreement in
method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical
Research, 8(2), 135–160.
Comfort, P. (2013). Within- and between-session reliability of
power, force, and rate of force development during the power
clean. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(5),
1210–1214.
Cormie, P., McBride, J. M., & McCaulley, G. O. (2007).
Validation of power measurement techniques in dynamic
lower body resistance exercises. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 23(2), 103–118.
Cronin, J., McNair, P., & Marshall, R. (2001). Magnitude and
decay of stretch-induced enhancement of power output.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 84(6), 575–581.
Currell, K., & Jeukendrup, A. E. (2008). Validity, reliability and
sensitivity of measures of sporting performance. Sports
Medicine, 38(4), 297–316.
Dugan, E. L., Doyle, T. L., Humphries, B., Hasson, C. J., &
Newton, R. U. (2004). Determining the optimal load for jump
squats: A review of methods and calculations. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 18(3), 668–674.
Faigenbaum, A. D., McFarland, J. E., Herman, R. E., Naclerio,
F., Ratamess, N. A., Kang, J., & Myer, G. D. (2012).
Reliability of the one-repetition-maximum power clean test in
adolescent athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 26(2), 432–437.
García-Pallarés, J., Sánchez-Medina, L., Carrasco, L., Díaz, A., &
Izquierdo, M. (2009). Endurance and neuromuscular changes

in world-class level kayakers during a periodized training cycle.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 106(4), 629–638.
González-Badillo, J. J., & Marques, M. C. (2010). Relationship
between kinematic factors and countermovement jump height
in trained track and field athletes. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 24(12), 3443–3447.
González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement
velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(5), 347–352.
Hopkins, W. G. (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine
and science. Sports Medicine, 30(1), 1–15.
Hopkins, W. G., Hawley, J. A., & Burke, L. M. (1999). Design
and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(3), 472–485.
Hori, N., Newton, R. U., Kawamori, N., McGuigan, M. R.,
Kraemer, W. J., & Nosaka, K. (2009). Reliability of performance
measurements derived from ground reaction force data during
countermovement jump and the influence of sampling frequency.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(3), 874–882.
Izquierdo, M., Hakkinen, K., González-Badillo, J. J., Ibáñez, J., &
Downloaded by [Ams/Murcia Humanity] at 01:33 28 February 2014
Gorostiaga, E. M. (2002). Effects of long-term training speci-
ficity on maximal strength and power of the upper and lower
extremities in athletes from different sports. European Journal of
Applied Physiology, 87(3), 264–271.
Izquierdo-Gabarren, M., González de Txabarri Expósito, R. G.,
García-Pallarés, J., Sánchez-Medina, L., De Villarreal, E., &
Izquierdo, M. (2010). Concurrent endurance and strength
training not to failure optimizes performance gains. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42(6), 1191–1199.
Komi, P. V. (1984). Physiological and biomechanical correlates of
muscle function: Effects of muscle structure and stretch-short-
ening cycle on force and speed. Exercise and Sport Sciences
Reviews, 12, 81–121.
Komi, P. V. (2000). Stretch-shortening cycle: A powerful model
to study normal and fatigued muscle. Journal of Biomechanics,
33(10), 1197–1206.
Lake, J. P., Lauder, M. A., & Smith, N. A. (2012). Barbell
kinematics should not be used to estimate power output
applied to the barbell-and-body system center of mass during
lower-body resistance exercise. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1302–1307.
Levinger, I., Goodman, C., Hare, D. L., Jerums, G., Toia, D., &
Selig, S. (2009). The reliability of the 1RM strength test for
untrained middle-aged individuals. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 12(2), 310–316.
Ludbrook, J. (2002). Statistical techniques for comparing mea-
surers and methods of measurement: A critical review.
Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 29
(7), 527–536.
McCurdy, K., Langford, G. A., Cline, A. L., Doscher, M., &
Hoff, R. (2004). The reliability of 1-and 3RM tests of unilateral
strength in trained and untrained men and women. Journal of
Sports Science and Medicine, 3(3), 190–196.
McGuigan, M. R., & Kane, M. K. (2004). Reliability of perfor-
mance of elite Olympic weightlifters. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 18(3), 650–653.
Mora-Rodríguez, R., García Pallarés, J., López-Samanes, Á.,
Ortega, J. F., & Fernández-Elías, V. E. (2012). Caffeine inges-
tion reverses the circadian rhythm effects on neuromuscular
performance in highly resistance-trained men. Plos One, 7(4),
e33807. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033807
Pallarés, J. G., Fernández-Elías, V. E., Ortega, J. F., Muñoz, G.,
Muñoz-Guerra, J., & Mora-Rodríguez, R. (2013). Neuromuscular
responses to incremental caffeine doses: Performance and side-
effects. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45(11),
2184–2192. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31829a6672
Pallarés, J. G., López-Samanes, A., Moreno, J., Fernández-Elías,
V. E., Ortega, J. F., & Mora-Rodríguez, R. (2013). Circadian
Reliability in isoinertial strength assessments 11
rhythm effects on neuromuscular and sprint swimming perfor-
mance. Biological Rhythm Research, 45(1), 51–60.
Reilly, T., Morris, T., & Whyte, G. (2009). The specificity of
training prescription and physiological assessment: A review.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(6), 575–589.
Ritti-Dias, R. M., Avelar, A., Salvador, E. P., & Cyrino, E. S.
(2011). Influence of previous experience on resistance training
on reliability of one-repetition maximum test. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(5), 1418–1422.
Sale, D. G., & Norman, R. (1982). Testing strength and power.
In D. MacDougall, H. A. Wenger, & H. J. Green (Eds.),
Physiological testing of the elite athlete (pp. 7–37). Ithaca, NY:
Mouvement Publications.
Sánchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2011). Velocity
loss as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance
training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(9),
1725–1734.
Sánchez-Medina, L., González-Badillo, J. J., Pérez, C. E., &
Pallarés, J. G. (2013). Velocity- and power-load relationships
of the bench pull versus bench press exercises. International
Journal of Sports Medicine. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1055/s-0033-1351252
Sánchez-Medina, L., Pérez, C. E., & González-Badillo, J. J.
(2010). Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assess-
ment. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 31(2), 123–129.
Seo, D., Kim, E., Fahs, C. A., Rossow, L., Young, K., Ferguson,
S. L., … So, W. (2012). Reliability of the one-repetition max-
imum test based on muscle group and gender. Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine, 11(2), 221–225.
Sheppard, J. M., Cormack, S., Taylor, K. L., McGuigan, M. R.,
& Newton, R. U. (2008). Assessing the force-velocity charac-
teristics of the leg extensors in well-trained athletes: The incre-
mental load power profile. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 22(4), 1320–1326.
Stock, M. S., Beck, T. W., DeFreitas, J. M., & Dillon, M. A.
(2011). Test-retest reliability of barbell velocity during the free-
weight bench-press exercise. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 25(1), 171–177.
Tagesson, S. K., & Kvist, J. (2007). Intra- and interrater reliability
of the establishment of one repetition maximum on squat and
seated knee extension. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 21(3), 801–807.
Taylor, J. D., & Fletcher, J. P. (2012). Reliability of the 8-repeti-
tion maximum test in men and women. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 15(1), 69–73.
Thys, H., Cavagna, G. A., & Margaria, R. (1975). The role played
by elasticity in an exercise involving movements of small ampli-
tude. Pflügers Archiv European Journal of Physiology, 354(3),
281–286.
Thys, H., Faraggiana, T., & Margaria, R. (1972). Utilization of
muscle elasticity in exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology, 32
(4), 491–494.
Vincent, J. W. (2005). Statistics in kinesiology (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wadden, K. P., Button, D. C., Kibele, A., & Behm, D. G. (2012).
Neuromuscular fatigue recovery following rapid and slow
stretch-shortening cycle movements. Applied Physiology,
Nutrition, and Metabolism, 37(3), 437–447.
Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the
intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(1), 231–240.
Wilson, G. J., Elliott, B. C., & Wood, G. A. (1991). The effect on
performance of imposing a delay during a stretch-shorten cycle
movement. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 23(3),
364–370.
Wilson, G. J., Wood, G. A., & Elliott, B. C. (1991). Optimal
stiffness of series elastic component in a stretch-shorten cycle
activity. Journal of Applied Physiology, 70(2), 825–833.