The Acute Effect of Ascending-Pyramid, Descending-Pyramid, and Constant-Load Set Configurations on Repetition Performance, Training Volume, and Barbell Velocity During Bench Press Exercise

Abstract

This study analyzed the effect of ascending pyramid (AP), constant load (CL), and descending pyramid (DP) training on repetition performance, training volume, barbell velocity, mechanical fatigue, and perceptual measurements during bench press exercise. Eighteen well-trained young males (18-40 years) performed AP, CL, and DP in a randomized order. Subjects were ranked according to relative strength ratio (Bench press 1-RM ÷ body mass) and the total sample of 18 males was divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), n = 9, RSR = 1.20-1.56; group 2 (G2), n = 9, RSR = 0.75-1.16. Volume (5 sets), relative intensity (65-85% 1-RM), set end point (25% velocity loss (VL)), and rest intervals (5 min) were matched between conditions. Relative intensity did not change during CL (75% 1-RM), while sets were performed from light-to-heavy during AP (65-70-75-80-85% 1-RM), and heavy-to-light during DP (85-80-75-70-65% 1-RM). Repetition performance, total volume load (TVL), mean and peak velocity, VL, and ratings of perceived exertion (set-RPE) were measured during each session while affect, discomfort, enjoyment, and session-RPE were measured after each session. Mean and peak velocity with 45% 1-RM were assessed before, 5-min after, and 10-min after each session. Data indicated that peak velocity and set-RPE were significantly lower during DP (p ≤ 0.05) while no differences were detected between AP and CL. Session x set interactions (p ≤ 0.05) were observed for repetition performance, mean velocity, peak velocity, VL, and set-RPE, but differences were likely influenced by fluctuating relative intensities during AP and DP. Data also revealed that lifters from G2 executed their repetitions with greater mean and peak velocities than G1 (p ≤ 0.05), suggesting that relative strength influences barbell velocity. In conclusion, AP, CL, and DP are viable options for training sessions, but the latter may negatively affect peak velocity.

Keywords

• Training techniques
• Resistance training performance
• Velocity loss