Changes in Maximal Strength, Velocity, and Power After 8 Weeks of Training With Pneumatic or Free Weight Resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because free weight (FW) and pneumatic (PN) resistance are characterized by different inertial properties, training with either resistance could afford unique strength, velocity, and power adaptations. Eighteen resistance-trained men completed baseline tests to determine their FW and PN bench press 1 repetition maximum (1RM). During the FW session, 4 explosive repetitions were performed at loads of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1RM to assess force, velocity, and power. Participants were then assigned to a FW or PN training group, which involved three 90-minute sessions per week for 8 weeks. Both intervention groups completed identical periodized programs with the exception of the resistance used to perform all bench press movements. Free weight participants significantly increased their FW and PN 1RM (10.4 and 9.4%), and maximum (any load) force (9.8%), velocity (11.6%), and power (22.5%). Pneumatic-trained participants also exhibited increases in FW and PN 1RM (11.6 and 17.5%), and maximum force (8.4%), velocity (13.6%), and power (33.4%). Both interventions improved peak barbell velocity at loads of 15 and 30% 1RM; however, only the PN-trained individuals displayed improvements in peak force and power at these same loads. Training with PN resistance may offer advantages if attempting to improve power at lighter relative loads by affording an opportunity to consistently achieve higher accelerations and velocities (F = ma), in comparison with FW. Exploiting the inertial properties of the resistance, whether mass, elastic or PN, could afford an opportunity to develop mixed-method training strategies and/or elicit unique neuromuscular adaptations to suit the specific needs of athletes from sports characterized by varying demands.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".