Resumen
This study aimed to compare and associate the magnitude of the load?velocity relationship variables between the multiple-point and two-point methods and between the concentric-only and eccentric?concentric prone bench pull (PBP) variants. Twenty-three resistance-trained males completed a preliminary session to determine the concentric-only PBP one-repetition maximum (1 RM) and two experimental sessions that only differed in the PBP variant evaluated. In each experimental session they performed three repetitions against the 14 kg load (L1), two repetitions against the 85% 1 RM load (L4), three repetitions against an equidistant intermediate light load (L2), two repetitions against an equidistant intermediate heavy load (L3), and 1?5 1 RM attempts. The load?velocity relationship variables (i.e., load?axis intercept, velocity?axis intercept, and area under the load?velocity relationship line) were obtained from the multiple-point (L1-L2-L3-L4) and two-point (L1-L4) methods. All load?velocity relationship variables presented greater magnitudes when obtained by the two-point method compared with the multiple-point method (p < 0.001, ESrange = 0.17?0.43), while the load?velocity relationship variables were comparable between both PBP variants (p = 0.148). In addition, the load?velocity relationship variables were highly correlated between both methods (rrange = 0.972?0.995) and PBP variants (rrange = 0.798?0.909). When assessing the load?velocity relationship variables, practitioners should prescribe only two loads, as this maximises the magnitudes of the variables and decreases fatigue.