Search

Purpose: The present intervention study examined the effects of intensity-matched velocity-based strength training with a 10% velocity loss (VL10) versus traditional 1-repetition maximum (1RM) based resistance training to failure (TRF) on 1RM and maximal oxygen uptake ( V ˙ O 2 max) in a concurrent training setting. Methods: Using the minimization method, 21 highly trained rowers (4 females and 17 males; 19.6 [2.1] y, 1.83 [0.07] m, 74.6 [8.8] kg, V ˙ O 2 max : 64.9 [ 8.5 ] mL · kg − 1 · min − 1 ) were either assigned to VL10 or TRF. In addition to rowing endurance training (about 75 min·d−1), both groups performed strength training (5 exercises, 80% 1RM, 4 sets, 2–3 min interset recovery, 2 times/week) over 8 weeks. Squat, deadlift, bench row, and bench press 1RM and V ˙ O 2 max rowing-ergometer ramp tests were completed. Overall recovery and overall stress were monitored every evening using the Short Recovery and Stress Scale. Results: Large and significant group × time interactions (P <.03, η p 2 >.23 , standard mean differences [SMD] > 0.65) in favor of VL10 (averaged +18.0% [11.3%]) were observed for squat, bench row, and bench press 1RM compared with TRF (averaged +8.0% [2.9%]). V ˙ O 2 max revealed no interaction effects (P =.55, η p 2 =.01 , standard mean difference <.23) but large time effects (P <.05, η p 2 >.27). Significant group × time interactions (P =.001, η p 2 >.54 , SMD > |0.525|) in favor of VL10 were also observed for overall recovery and overall stress 24 and 48 hours after strength training. Conclusions: VL10 serves as a promising means to improve strength capacity at lower repetitions and stress levels in highly trained athletes. Future research should investigate the interference effects of VL10 in strength endurance sports and its effects when increasing weekly VL10 sessions within one macrocycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The combination of plyometric and resistance training (RT) is frequently used to increase power-related adaptations. Since plyometric training is most effective when athletes are in a well-rested state, the acute effect of RT on plyometric performance should be carefully considered. Thus, 15 highly trained males (23.1±3.5 yrs, 1.80±0.06 m, 79.1±7.9 kg) completed a load- and volume-matched velocity-based RT session with 10% velocity loss (VL10) and traditional 1-repetition maximum-based RT session to failure (TRF) in a randomized order. Repeated sprints (5 × 15 m), countermovement jumps (CMJs), and drop jumps (DJs) were measured before, immediately after, and 24 h after both sessions. Lactate, heart rate, and perceived effort (RPE) were measured. Sprint, CMJ, and DJ revealed significant interaction effects (rANOVA p <0.001, ηp2 ≥0.63). Immediately afterward, sprint, DJ, and CMJ were less negatively affected (p ≤0.03, SMD≥|0.40|) by VL10 vs. TRF. Sprint and CMJ were already recovered 24 h post-testing and showed no significant differences between TRF and VL10 (p ≥0.07, SMD≤|0.21|). Twenty-four hours post-testing, DJs were still reduced during TRF but already recovered during VL10 (p =0.01, SMD=|0.70|). TRF resulted in higher lactate, heart rate, and RPE compared to VL10 (p ≤0.019, η p 2 ≥0.27, SMD≥|0.68|). In conclusion, the non-failure-based VL10 impairs jump and sprint performance less than the failure-based TRF approach, despite matched volume and intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed at assessing the validity and test-retest reliability of the inertial measurement unit-based Vmaxpro sensor compared with a Vicon 3D motion capture system and the T-Force sensor during an incremental 1-repetition maximum (1RM) test and at submaximal loads. Nineteen subjects reported to the laboratory for the 1RM test sessions, whereas 15 subjects carried out another 3 sessions consisting of 3 repetitions with 4 different intensities (30, 50, 70, and 90% of 1RM) to determine the intra- and interday reliability. The Vmaxpro sensor showed high validity (Vicon: R² =0.935; T-Force: R² = 0.968) but an overestimation of the mean velocities (MVs) of 0.06 ± 0.08 m·s-1 and 0.06 ± 0.06 m·s-1 compared with Vicon and T-Force, respectively. Regression analysis indicated a systematic bias that is increasing with higher MVs. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for Vmaxpro were moderate to high for intraday (ICC: 0.662-0.938; p &8804#; 0.05) and for interday (ICC: 0.568-0.837; p ≤ 0.05) reliability, respectively. The Vmaxpro is a valid and reliable measurement device that can be used to monitor movement velocities within a training session. However, practitioners should be cautious when assessing movement velocities on separate days because of the moderate interday reliability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This network meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of different velocity-based (VBT) and traditional 1RM-based resistance training (TRT) interventions on strength and power indices in healthy participants. The research was conducted until December 2021 using the online electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and SPORTDiscus for studies with the following inclusion criteria: 1) controlled VBT trials, 2) strength and/or jump and/or sprint parameters as outcomes (c), participants aged between 18 and 40 years, and 4) peer-reviewed and published in English. Standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects models were calculated. Fourteen studies with 311 healthy participants were selected and 3 networks (strength, jump, and sprint) were achieved. VBT, TRT, repetitions in reserve (RIR), low velocity loss (lowVL), and high velocity loss (highVL) were ranked for each network. Based on P-score rankings, lowVL (P-score ≥ 0.59; SMD ≥ 0.33) and highVL (P-score ≥ 0.50; SMD ≥ 0.12) revealed favorable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance compared to VBT (P-score ≤ 0.47; SMD ≤0.01), TRT (P-score ≤0.46; SMD ≤ 0.00), and RIR (P-score ≤ 0.46; SMD ≤ 0.12). In conclusion, lowVL and highVL showed notable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance. In particular for jump performance, lowVL induced favorable improvements compared to all other resistance training approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This network meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of different velocity-based (VBT) and traditional 1RM-based resistance training (TRT) interventions on strength and power indices in healthy participants. The research was conducted until December 2021 using the online electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNet, and SPORTDiscus for studies with the following inclusion criteria: 1) controlled VBT trials, 2) strength and/or jump and/or sprint parameters as outcomes (c), participants aged between 18 and 40 years, and 4) peer-reviewed and published in English. Standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects models were calculated. Fourteen studies with 311 healthy participants were selected and 3 networks (strength, jump, and sprint) were achieved. VBT, TRT, repetitions in reserve (RIR), low velocity loss (lowVL), and high velocity loss (highVL) were ranked for each network. Based on P-score rankings, lowVL (P-score ≥ 0.59; SMD ≥ 0.33) and highVL (P-score ≥ 0.50; SMD ≥ 0.12) revealed favorable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance compared to VBT (P-score ≤ 0.47; SMD ≤0.01), TRT (P-score ≤0.46; SMD ≤ 0.00), and RIR (P-score ≤ 0.46; SMD ≤ 0.12). In conclusion, lowVL and highVL showed notable effects on strength, jump, and sprint performance. In particular for jump performance, lowVL induced favorable improvements compared to all other resistance training approaches.

Accuracy and test–retest reliability were assessed for two devices, PUSH Band 2.0 (PUSH) and Speed4lifts. Two identical sessions were performed 6–8 days apart. Twenty rugby league players performed three repetitions with 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% of estimated one repetition maximum for back squat (BS), front squat (FS), and bench press (BP). Velocity was recorded using PUSH, Speed4lifts and 3D motion analysis system (gold standard). Passing-Bablok regression analysis assessed agreement of velocity measures with the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV) assessed test–retest reliability. PUSH and Speed4lifts were accurate for BS velocities <1.00 m/s and FS velocities <0.65 m/s. PUSH was accurate for BP velocities <0.65 m/s. Speed4lifts was accurate for BP velocities between 0.65–1.00 m/s. PUSH was reliable at all loads (ICC = 0.79–0.92; CV = 2.63–6.89%) except for 20% FS and BP (ICC = 0.49–0.64; CV = 3.13–3.62%). Speed4lifts was reliable at all loads (ICC = 0.70–0.96; CV = 2.57–4.26%) except for 20% BP (ICC = 0.59; CV = 4.59%). These results suggest that both devices are unsuitable for measuring the velocity of BS, FS and BP at faster velocities and at lighter loads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Back squat mean concentric velocity (MV) and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance were examined in sub-elite rugby league players post-match to monitor changes in neuromuscular status (NMS) from baseline. Relationships between changes in back squat MV and CMJ performance variables were used to compare back squat MV to an established method to monitor NMS.Design: Longitudinal observational design.Methods: 18 male sub-elite rugby league players (mean±SD, 20.5±2.4 yr; 180.0±6.7cm; 93.3±11.2kg) performed 3 repetitions of CMJ and back squat with an individualised, pre-determined load at -2h (baseline), +30min, +24h, and +48h in relation to a match. Back squat MV, CMJ height, CMJ peak power, and CMJ peak velocity were measured with a linear position transducer.Results: Significant (p<0.05), small to large decreases (ES=0.52-1.24) were observed in back squat MV up to +48h post-match. Significant (p<0.05), small to moderate decreases (ES=0.52-0.70) in CMJ height were also observed up to +24h post-match, returning to baseline at +48h. CMJ peak power and peak velocity post-match changes were not significant compared to baseline (p>0.05). Significant positive correlations were found between changes in back squat MV and CMJ height at +30min (r=0.59; p=0.009) and +48h (r=0.51; p=0.03).Conclusions: These findings suggest back squat MV may be a suitable alternative or addition to CMJ testing for monitoring NMS in rugby league players. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When monitoring the mean concentric velocity (MCV) for velocity-based resistance training, often a threshold in the decline in the MCV is used to regulate the number of repetitions performed. However, it is not clear if the decline in the MCV is affected by the type of exercise or the relative load used. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the decline in the MCV between the overhead press (OHP) and deadlift (DL) during sets to fatigue at different loads. Thirty individuals (23 ± 3 years) with current training experience with both the OHP and DL completed a 1 repetition maximum (1RM) protocol for the OHP and DL. Subjects then returned to the laboratory on 2 separate occasions and completed 1 set of the OHP and DL to volitional fatigue at either 70 or 90% of their 1RM in a randomized order. The open barbell system measured the MCV of all repetitions. The absolute and relative (%) decline in the MCV was calculated for each condition and compared between loads (70 vs. 90% 1RM) and between lifts (OHP vs. DL). An alpha level of 0.05 was used at the criterion for statistical significance. The absolute decline in the MCV was greatest for the 70% OHP condition (0.36 ± 0.12 m⋅s-1) followed by 90% OHP (0.19 ± 0.10 m⋅s-1), 70% DL(0.16 ± 0.08 m⋅s-1), and 90% DL(0.09 ± 0.06 m⋅s-1); all were significantly different from one another (p < 0.05) except for 70% DL vs. 90% OHP (p 5 0.441). There was a greater relative decline in the MCV for the OHP compared with the DL (50.1 ± 11.8% vs. 28.5 ± 11.8%; p < 0.001) and for 70% 1RM compared with 90% 1RM(44.5 ± 12.0% vs. 34.1 ± 12.0%; p < 0.001). These data suggest the decline in the MCV is both exercise and load specific. Applying a uniform velocity decline threshold for velocity-based training may reduce training volume to different extents depending on the exercise and relative load used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity, interunit reliability (accounting for technological and biological variance), and between-day reliability of a novel optic laser device (FLEX) for quantifying mean concentric velocity. To assess the validity against a three-dimensional motion capture system and interunit reliability with both technological and biological variation, 18 men and women completed repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 100% of one repetition maximum in the free-weight barbell back squat and bench press. To assess interunit (technological only) reliability, a purpose-built, calibrated rig completed a set protocol with 2 devices. To assess between-day reliability of the technology, the same protocol was repeated 21 days later. Standardized bias, typical error of the estimate (TEE; %), and Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) were used to assess validity, whereas typical error and coefficient of variation (CV%) were calculated for reliability. Overall, TEE (±90 CL) between the FLEX and criterion measure was 0.03 (±0.004) and 0.04 (±0.005) m·s−1 in the back squat and bench press, respectively. For measures of reliability, overall interunit technological variance (CV% [± 90% confidence interval]) was 3.96% (3.83–4.12) but increased to 9.82% (9.31–10.41) and 9.83% (9.17–10.61) in the back squat and bench press, respectively, when biological variance was introduced. Finally, the overall between-day reliability was 3.77% (3.63–3.91). These findings demonstrate that the FLEX provides valid and reliable mean concentric velocity outputs across a range of velocities. Thus, practitioners can confidently implement this device for the monitoring and prescription of resistance training loads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While velocity-based training is currently a very popular paradigm to designing and monitoring resistance training programs, its implementation remains a challenge in team sports, where there are still some confusion and misinterpretations of its applications. In addition, in contexts with large squads, it is paramount to understand how to best use movement velocity in different exercises in a useful and time-efficient way. This manuscript aims to provide clarifications on the velocity-based training paradigm, movement velocity tracking technologies, assessment procedures and practical recommendations for its application during resistance training sessions, with the purpose of increasing performance, managing fatigue and preventing injuries. Guidelines to combine velocity metrics with subjective scales to prescribe training loads are presented, as well as methods to estimate 1-Repetition Maximum (1RM) on a daily basis using individual load–velocity profiles. Additionally, monitoring strategies to detect and evaluate changes in performance over time are discussed. Finally, limitations regarding the use of velocity of execution tracking devices and metrics such as “muscle power” are commented upon.

Hip thrust (HT) is a loaded bridging exercise that requires more hip extension than a back squat (SQ) does, while in a back squat, triple flex extension occurs. Due to the specificity of each exercise, it is claimed that HT gains can be better transferred to actions where hip extension occurs. In addition, strength improvements during squatting can be transferred in a greater way to vertical plane movement, such as vertical jumping. However, its effects on the performance of female soccer players are unclear. For this reason, the purpose of this study was to analyze a 7-week training program on performance variables using either HT or SQ exercises in female adolescent soccer players without lifting experience (N = 24, age = 16.82 ± 1.56 years, height = 1.64 ± 0.55 cm, body mass = 58.35 ± 6.28 kg). Players were randomized into three groups: A back squat group (SQG; N = 8), hip thrust group (HTG; N = 8), and control group (CG; N = 8). Participants in the HTG and SQG joined a progressive resistance training program twice per week for 7 weeks with either HT or SQ exercises. A countermovement jump, 10–20 m sprint, T-test, and barbell velocity during HTs and SQs (with the load that represents ~60 and ~80% RM) were measured before and after the intervention. The HTG showed greater improvements in the 10-m sprint (d = 0.7), 20-m sprint (d = 0.46), T-test (d = 0.36), and barbell velocity at 80% repetition maximal (RM) (d = 0.53) and 60% RM (d = 1.02) during hip thrusts, while the SQG showed higher barbell velocity at 80% RM (d = −0.7) during back squats. These results may be useful for strength and conditioning coaches working with adolescent female soccer athletes, since both strengthening exercises improved performance in different ways due to the nature of the exercise.

While velocity-based training is currently a very popular paradigm to designing and monitoring resistance training programs, its implementation remains a challenge in team sports, where there are still some confusion and misinterpretations of its applications. In addition, in contexts with large squads, it is paramount to understand how to best use movement velocity in different exercises in a useful and time-efficient way. This manuscript aims to provide clarifications on the velocity-based training paradigm, movement velocity tracking technologies, assessment procedures and practical recommendations for its application during resistance training sessions, with the purpose of increasing performance, managing fatigue and preventing injuries. Guidelines to combine velocity metrics with subjective scales to prescribe training loads are presented, as well as methods to estimate 1-Repetition Maximum (1RM) on a daily basis using individual load–velocity profiles. Additionally, monitoring strategies to detect and evaluate changes in performance over time are discussed. Finally, limitations regarding the use of velocity of execution tracking devices and metrics such as "muscle power" are commented upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hip thrust (HT) is a loaded bridging exercise that requires more hip extension than a back squat (SQ) does, while in a back squat, triple flex extension occurs. Due to the specificity of each exercise, it is claimed that HT gains can be better transferred to actions where hip extension occurs. In addition, strength improvements during squatting can be transferred in a greater way to vertical plane movement, such as vertical jumping. However, its effects on the performance of female soccer players are unclear. For this reason, the purpose of this study was to analyze a 7-week training program on performance variables using either HT or SQ exercises in female adolescent soccer players without lifting experience (N = 24, age = 16.82 ± 1.56 years, height = 1.64 ± 0.55 cm, body mass = 58.35 ± 6.28 kg). Players were randomized into three groups: A back squat group (SQG; N = 8), hip thrust group (HTG; N = 8), and control group (CG; N = 8). Participants in the HTG and SQG joined a progressive resistance training program twice per week for 7 weeks with either HT or SQ exercises. A countermovement jump, 10–20 m sprint, T-test, and barbell velocity during HTs and SQs (with the load that represents ~60 and ~80% RM) were measured before and after the intervention. The HTG showed greater improvements in the 10-m sprint (d = 0.7), 20-m sprint (d = 0.46), T-test (d = 0.36), and barbell velocity at 80% repetition maximal (RM) (d = 0.53) and 60% RM (d = 1.02) during hip thrusts, while the SQG showed higher barbell velocity at 80% RM (d = −0.7) during back squats. These results may be useful for strength and conditioning coaches working with adolescent female soccer athletes, since both strengthening exercises improved performance in different ways due to the nature of the exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]