All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulations on a fantastic manuscript! Thanks for your contribution to the literature in this area.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Thank you for considering my revisions and responding to them.
Clear
Within aims of journal and sufficient
Valid
The authors carefully addressed all my previous concerns.
no comment
no comment
The authors have made a good job with the reply to my previous comments.
Thank you for your interesting manuscript. Please carefully review and respond to each of the reviewers' comments and suggestions on your manuscript. I will be looking for a response to each comment, so be sure to indicate where you have modified the manuscript and also provide a justification/response to where you have not.
I look forward to receiving a revised version.
Cheers,
Scotty
Meets all Basic Reporting standards, however analysis would benefit from the inclusion of citing Ormsbee et al 2019 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28301439. See 3, validity of findings below.
Meets all Experimental Design standards
Meets standards, only one instance in which the speculation by the authors may conflict with previous findings. Specifically, on line 278-288 please see the recent in press article by Ormsbee in which they found a significantly lower velocity at 1RM among experienced bench pressers vs inexperienced (with a lower 1RM) on free weight bench press. For this reason, I think it would be a more conservative conclusion to state on line 288 (see upper case added text) that “it is not necessary to modify the minimal
velocity threshold based on the 1RM strength values FOR THE SMITH MACHINE BENCH PRESS”. Given Ormsbee and colleagues did report a different velocity between participants of different strength, this statement with my suggested modification may be more likely to be true, as perhaps the complexity of free vs smith machine bench press could make a difference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28301439.
This is a well written, useful addition to the literature that expands what we know about smith machine bench press, variants of the bench press, and potentially improves the prescription of VBT.
I only have a few minor comments in addition to my notes in the specific sections above:
In the introduction, please indicate when discussing prior studies on the bench press when/if they used the Smith Machine in each case “bench press” is stated.
Line 260-261 this sentence reads as incomplete to me, and for clarity would benefit from revision.
Line 273 also please include that we (Helms 2017) used a “press” command to simulate powerlifting competition, so there was a brief pause on the chest which may produce a different velocity than a con-ecc free weight bench press without a brief pause.
No comment. All comments in the general comment section.
No comment. All comments in the general comment section.
No comment. All comments in the general comment section.
Overall Comment
Overall, I thought this study was well-conducted. I have some thoughts which I believe will improve the manuscript. However, consistent with PeerJ’s reviewing policy which is centered around the validity of a paper, this study has undoubtedly met that. Therefore, the below is my opinion on what I would like to see if the authors agree. I do think the below will improve the impact of the paper, but again, PeerJ does not require this as criteria in the review. So, I am offering what I can. Please feel free to agree or disagree.
Introduction
1. %1RM should be changed to percentage of 1RM throughout.
2. Introduction, Line 68: I don’t believe the Torrejon 2018 study is a good study to use as evidence for men and women having different velocity profiles. First, this sentence states that men have higher velocities than women at the same percentage of 1RM, which is not at all what the study shows. It does show that at lower intensities (<60%), but at higher intensity this study shows the opposite, which is that men have slower velocities than women. Further, the men in the Torrejon study had a much higher training age and relative strength level than the women, so it would be inappropriate to conclude that sex was the determining factor. In fact, other data from Zourdos et al. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26049792) and Ormsbee et al. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=28301439) have shown that experienced lifters have slower velocities than novice lifters at high intensities. So, while we cannot know for sure what is driving the results of the Torrejon study, the conclusion with the most support in the literature would be that training status is influencing the velocity and not sex.
3. Lines 101-105 state that the two main bench press variants are benching with a pause and without a pause and that benching with a pause is a “concentric-only” movement, which is a false statement. A bench press with a pause, even in powerlifting meets, means that you press the bar as soon as the bar comes to a complete stop on the chest, which could be less than a second. Some studies may use a full second (they shouldn’t), but the stretch reflex only completely dissipates after 4 seconds, and this study used a 2-second pause, thus this is not a concentric only movement. I would change that wording.
4. The last comment leads me to the final paragraph of the introduction. Concentric-only should be changed to “paused bench press”. Eccentric-Concentric should then probably be changed to “touch and go bench press”.
5. I would improve the rationale a bit since the hypotheses are essentially that significance would not be found.
Materials and Methods
1. Why did some participants only perform one of the types of movement? Was it that there was a recording error? Or did some participants simply not perform the other by choice? If the latter, why?
2. Line 147, as noted above, please change to “75% of 1RM” and “90% of 1RM” and do so throughout.
3. I don’t understand how individuals with over a year of experience on average can have a 1RM smith machine bench press of only about 65kg…that is very light. I must assume that some participants were completely untrained? If so, this should be clarified. I would just report more details of training experience.
4. Lines 169-170, how was the load determined for the 2 sets to failure? My apologies if I am missing more specifics.
5. I would change mean velocity to mean concentric velocity throughout. Since the term “eccentric-concentric” and “concentric-only” (although those should be changed) are used, then used mean concentric velocity will clarify for the reader that only concentric velocity was assessed.
6. The most important finding, in my opinion, is that the velocity of the 1RM was different than the velocity of the last rep during the set to failure. Therefore, in the text of the results I would mention the average number of reps on the sets to failure and what the average intensity used was for these sets.
7. Was there a difference in the last set mean velocity of the last rep between set 1 to failure and set 2 to failure? Even if there was not, the 2nd set tended to have a slower last rep velocity. Why? To me this is very interesting for programming purposes. If this number is static, and presumably all velocity/RPE/RIR relationships leading up to it are accurate, then an individual can program using velocity to be at a certain RPE/RIR each set. If this number is not static, then using velocity-based training in this regard has limitations and RPE/RIR may be a better choice. So, what does the analysis say? Is this number static? I would then add more of this into the discussion.
Discussion
1. Lines 281-287 miss the point of the relationship between 1RM strength and 1RM velocity. We do indeed know from the Zourdos and Ormsbee studies mentioned above and I believe from the Torrejon study mentioned above that a higher training status is associated with a slower 1RM velocity. However, at a certain point (i.e. a few years of training) the difference isn’t as pronounced between moderate and experienced lifters as it is between experienced and novice; presumably because neural adaptations play less of a role later on in a training career. Although, when trained lifters perform ultra-specific training we do know that 1RM velocity becomes slower (https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3092/309245773040.pdf). Therefore, this line is a bit too strong in its claims. If anything, we are still very much searching for why velocity profiles are individualized, and training status probably has the most support for influencing velocity profiles. I think reporting minimums and maximums of the training ages and perhaps confidence intervals could help here.
Final Comments
I’d like to say, that despite my comments above, the study was well-conducted and deserving of publication. I just would like to see the above clarified, but it is just my opinion. I think more consideration should be given to the difference between the 1RM velocity and the velocity on the last rep of the sets to failure. Further, the velocities all various RIR points (5-0RIR) could be compared between the 2 sets to failure. If these are reliable then that is a very practical finding for velocity based training. This would also reveal that using velocity cutoffs would be superior to using velocity loss in many programming cases. A practical and useful discussion could be written around this. I think that could be a cool addition, but not necessary, just my thoughts.
This study provides interesting data regarding the reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure (Vlast) and the association of Vlast with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum (V1RM) during the concentric-only and eccentric-concentric bench press (BP) exercises. Present results demonstrated that reliability of Vlast was below the threshold of acceptable reliability for both BP variants. Vlast was always significantly lower than V1RM, while no significant differences between the BP variants were observed for V1RM or Vlast. Finally, the authors concluded that even though Vlast could be a more appropriate indicator of the minimal velocity threshold than V1RM, a general V1RM could be more appropriate to estimate the 1RM during the BP exercise performed in a Smith machine.
The paper is well written and provides interesting findings for those coaches and athletes who perform velocity based training in a daily manner.
The research question falls within the scope of the journal. The rationale of the study is clearly stated and the research question fills a gap in the velocity-based training literature. The methods are described with sufficient detail.
I have only minor comments that are outlined in the "comments to the authors" section.
All underlying data have been provided. The statistics are ok. I only have a minor comment on implementing a new statistical test (Bland-Atman) to represent the bias between the two outcomes (Vlast and V1RM) measured. Finally, conclusions are well stated and linked to the original research question & limited to supporting results.
This study provides interesting data regarding the reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure (Vlast) and the association of Vlast with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum (V1RM) during the concentric-only and eccentric-concentric bench press (BP) exercises. Present results demonstrated that reliability of Vlast was below the threshold of acceptable reliability for both BP variants. Vlast was always significantly lower than V1RM, while no significant differences between the BP variants were observed for V1RM or Vlast. Finally, the authors concluded that even though Vlast could be a more appropriate indicator of the minimal velocity threshold than V1RM, a general V1RM could be more appropriate to estimate the 1RM during the BP exercise performed in a Smith machine.
The paper is well written and provides interesting findings for those coaches and athletes who perform velocity based training in a daily manner. I only have minor comments as outlined below.
Although authors provide the training experience of the subjects (1.3 2.4 years), was a familiarization session performed? If so, please insert into the text. If not, would this compromise the reliability results?
The protocol is well described, however, I am concerned about how the accumulated fatigue during the session (the incremental loading test, 1st set to failure and finally 2nd set to failure) could compromise the reliability results for the Vlast. Please comment.
Why the mean velocity was chosen instead of peak or mean propulsive velocity? Please, provide a rationale.
Regarding the statistical analysis, I think it would be also appropriate using the Bland-Atman method to contrast the bias from the Vlast and V1RM.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.