Dr. Ulloa-Diaz, David

El estudio tiene como propósito analizar la fiabilidad de la prueba de 8 lanzamientos de 3 diferentes variantes de lanzamientos de balonmano en estudiantado universitario. 33 varones, 20 ±1,9 años peso 72,39±8,9 kg altura 176,75 ±6,07 cm IMC 23,14±2,3. Los sujetos participantes fueron evaluados en 2 sesiones separadas entre sí por un lapso de una semana. Ejecutaron lanzamientos hasta quedar registrados 8 mediciones en cada una de las pruebas, lanzamientos inespecíficos, en apoyo y en carrera con 3 pasos, se registró la velocidad de lanzamiento con un radar posterior a la portería. La fiabilidad del promedio de las puntuaciones del test de 8 medidas entre la primera sesión y la segunda con una prueba test-retest, se obtuvieron los siguientes resultados: en el lanzamiento inespecífico se obtuvo un ICC= (0,86) entre el 95% de confianza, un de CV= (7,43%) y un ES= (0,08). Para el lanzamiento con apoyo se obtuvo un ICC= (0,94) al 95 % de confianza, un de CV= (4,71 %) y un ES= (-0,09). Para el lanzamiento con carrera se obtuvo un ICC= (0,96) al 95 % de confianza, un de CV= (4,00 %) y un ES= (0,05). Este estudio ha demostrado que la prueba de 8 lanzamientos y las 3 variantes es una medida de rendimiento confiable y estable para estudiantes de nivel universitario sin experiencia en el balonmano, en relación con las variables del lanzamiento, las 3 fueron fiables, solo la variable inespecífica fue menor en comparación al lanzamiento con apoyo y con carrera.

Background: There is no conclusive evidence about the association between physical fitness (PF) and health related quality of life (HRQOL) in older adults. Aim: To seek for an association between PF and HRQOL in non-disabled community-dwelling Chilean older adults. Material and Methods: One hundred and sixteen subjects participated in the study. PF was assessed using the Senior Fitness Test (SFT) and hand grip strength (HGS). HRQOL was assessed using eight dimensions provided by the SF-12v2 questionnaire. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were carried out considering the potential influence of confounder variables. Results: Non-adjusted models, indicated that subjects with better performance in arm curl test (ACT) were more likely to score higher on vitality dimension (OR > 1) and those with higher HGS were more likely to score higher on physical functioning, bodily pain, vitality and mental health (OR > 1). The adjusted models consistently showed that ACT and HGS predicted a favorable perception of vitality and mental health dimensions respectively (OR > 1). Conclusions: HGS and ACT have a predictive value for certain dimensions of HRQOL.

Background: The aim of this study was to examine whether the addition of very light loads for modeling the force–velocity (F–V) relationship during the bench press (BP) exercise can confirm its experimental linearity as well as to increase the reliability and concurrent validity of the F–V relationship parameters (maximum force (F0), maximum velocity (V0), F–V slope, and maximum power (Pmax)). Method: The F–V relationship of 19 healthy men were determined using three different methods: (I) 6-loads free method: six loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 1–8–29–39–49–59 kg), (II) 4-loads free method: four loads performed during the traditional free-weight BP exercise (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg), and (III) 4-loads Smith method: four loads performed during the ballistic bench press throw exercise in a Smith machine (≈ 29–39–49–59 kg). Results: The linearity of the F–V relationship was very high and comparable for the three F–V methods (p = 0.204; median Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) = 0.99). The three methods were ranked from the most to the least reliable as follows: 6-loads free (coefficient of variation (CV) range = 3.6–6.7%) > 4-loads Smith (CV range = 4.6–12.4%) > 4-loads free (CV range = 3.8–14.5%). The higher reliability of the 6-loads free method was especially pronounced for F–V slope (CVratio ≥ 1.85) and V0 (CVratio ≥ 1.49) parameters, while the lowest difference in reliability was observed for F0 (CVratio ≤ 1.27). The 6-loads free and 4-loads free methods showed a very high concurrent validity respect to the 4-loads Smith method for F0 and Pmax (r ≥ 0.89), a moderate validity for the F–V slope (r = 0.66–0.82), and a low validity for V0 (r ≤ 0.37). Discussion: The routine testing of the F–V relationship of upper-body muscles through the BP exercise should include trials with very light loading conditions to enhance the reliability of the F–V relationship.

This aims of this study were (I) to determine the velocity variable and regression model which best fit the load-velocity relationship during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise, (II) to compare the reliability of the velocity attained at each percentage of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) between different velocity variables and regression models, and (III) to compare the within- and between-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM. Eighteen men (14 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental test during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise in two different sessions. General and individual load-velocity relationships were modelled through three velocity variables (mean velocity [MV], mean propulsive velocity [MPV] and peak velocity [PV]) and two regression models (linear and second-order polynomial). The main findings revealed that (I) the general (Pearson’s correlation coefficient [r] range = 0.964–0.973) and individual (median r = 0.986 for MV, 0.989 for MPV, and 0.984 for PV) load-velocity relationships were highly linear, (II) the reliability of the velocity attained at each %1RM did not meaningfully differ between the velocity variables (coefficient of variation [CV] range = 2.55–7.61% for MV, 2.84–7.72% for MPV and 3.50–6.03% for PV) neither between the regression models (CV range = 2.55–7.72% and 2.73–5.25% for the linear and polynomial regressions, respectively), and (III) the within-subject variability of the velocity attained at each %1RM was lower than the between-subject variability for the light-moderate loads. No meaningful differences between the within- and between-subject CVs were observed for the MV of the 1RM trial (6.02% vs. 6.60%; CV ratio = 1.10), while the within-subject CV was lower for PV (6.36% vs. 7.56%; CV ratio = 1.19). These results suggest that the individual load-MV relationship should be determined with a linear regression model to obtain the most accurate prescription of the relative load during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (-3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (-0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.