## 1 Introduction  
Because of the widespread use of sports technology and its exciting practical applications, velocity-based resistance training has made significant progress in the field of strength and conditioning [1, 2]. One of the main practical applications consists of recording the load-velocity (L-V) profile for testing and monitoring purposes [3]. For example, the L-V relationship has been recently proposed as a simpler approach to assess the maximal capacities of the muscles to produce force at low (load-axis intercept (\(L_{0}\))) and high (velocity-axis intercept (\(v_{0}\))) velocities as well as performing work at a maximal rate (area under the L-V relationship line (\(\mathcal{A}_{line}\))) [4]. Since force data are not necessary for the L-V modelling, this recommendation is mainly geared to the lower extrapolation needed from the experimental points to \(v_{0}\) in exercises performed against gravity [4]. Emerging evidence has confirmed the high reliability, sensitivity, and validity of the L-V relationship variableswith respect to other traditional tests [4; 5; 6; 7]. However, there is a dearth of literature available for practitioners on how to optimise the L-V relationship testing procedures. The L-V relationship is commonly determined by applying a linear regression model to the data acquired from multiple external loads (i.e., _\"multiple-point method\"_) [4; 7; 8]. However, since the L-V relationship is approximately linear during multi-joint tasks [9], the addition of intermediate loads should not meaningfully improve the accuracy of the L-V relationship [10]. Accordingly, the same L-V relationship variables obtained from the multiple-point method can also be obtained by applying only two distant loads in the L-V modelling (i.e., the _\"two-point method\"_) [11]. To date, only [PERSON] et al. [5] have demonstrated that the L-V relationship variables during the countermovement jump exercise can be determined using the two-point approach, which is extremely valid in comparison with the multiple-point method. Particularly, the fact that the two-point method is derived from the testing procedure based on the multiple-point method has a significant impact on its validity. More importantly, the two-point method can considerably reduce testing time and minimise the fatigue induced by the testing protocol and, consequently, this simplified procedure is a better representation of maximal neuromuscular capabilities [12]. However, currently there is a need to assess the feasibility of the two-point method applied in field conditions (i.e., with only two distant loads used during the testing procedure) and in other core exercises (e.g., prone bench pull (PBP)). The PBP is likely the most-used exercise in strength and conditioning programs to develop upper-body pulling strength [13; 14]. Moreover, pulling actions are of considerable importance for success in various sports disciplines (e.g., sailing and rowing) [15; 16]. Typically, the subject starts the pulling phase with the barbell motionless and raised, such that their arms are straight beneath the bench (i.e., the _\"concentric-only PBP variant\"_) [6; 13; 14; 17]. The PBP exercise is therefore characterised by a descending strength curve where maximum strength is produced at the start of the lift [13]. However, when multiple repetitions are performed within a PBP training set, the pulling phase may also be preceded by a downward movement (i.e., the _\"eccentric-concentric PBP variant\"_) [18]. It is plausible that this eccentric overload may improve the muscles' ability to produce force earlier in the PBP motion by reducing muscle slack (i.e., the delay between muscular contraction and recoil of the series elastic elements) [19]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has compared the L-V profile between the two variants of PBP exercise. Similarly, it is of interest to elucidate whether both PBP variants provide similar insight into maximal neuromuscular capacities.