Linear programming produces greater, earlier and uninterrupted neuromuscular and functional adaptations than daily-undulating programming after velocity-based resistance training

Effects of 4 Different Velocity-Based Resistance-Training Programming Models on Physical Performance

PURPOSE

To examine the effects of 4 programming models (linear [LP], undulating [UP], reverse [RP], and constant [CP]) on physical performance.

METHODS

Forty-eight moderately strength-trained men were randomly assigned to LP, UP, RP, and CP groups according to their 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in the full-squat exercise (SQ) and followed an 8-week training intervention using the SQ and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar mean relative intensity (65% 1RM), number of repetitions (240), sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) throughout the training program. Pretraining and posttraining measurements included, in the SQ, 1RM load, the average velocity attained for all absolute loads common to pretests and posttests (AV), and the average velocity for loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s-1 at pretraining tests. Moreover, countermovement jump height and 20-m running sprint time were measured.

RESULTS

A significant time effect was found for all variables analyzed (P < .05), except for 20-m running sprint time. Significant group × time interactions were observed for 1RM, AV > 1, and AV (P < .05). After training, all groups attained significant strength gains on 1RM, AV, AV > 1, and AV < 1 (P < .001-.01). LP and RP groups improved their countermovement jump height (P < .01), but no significant changes were observed for UP and CP. No significant improvements were achieved in 20-m running sprint time for any groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These different programming models are all suitable for improving physical performance. LP and RP induce similar or greater gains in physical performance than UP and CP.

Load-velocity Relationship of the Bench Press Exercise is not Affected by Breast Cancer Surgery and Adjuvant Therapy

We examined the effect of breast cancer surgery and adjuvant therapy on the relationship between bar velocity and relative intensity (load-velocity [L-V] relationship) of the bench press (BP) exercise. Twenty-two breast cancer survivors (age: 48.0±8.2 yr., relative strength: 0.40±0.08) completed a loading test up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the BP using a lightweight carbon bar. General and individual relationships between relative intensity (%1RM) and mean propulsive velocity (MPV) were studied. Furthermore, the mean test velocity (MPVTest) and velocity attained to the 1RM (MPV1RM) were analyzed. These procedures and analyses were also conducted in 22 healthy women (age: 47.8±7.1 yr., relative strength: 0.41±0.09) to examine the differences in velocity parameters derived from these L-V relationships. Polynomial regressions showed very close relationships (R2≥0.965) and reduced estimation errors (≤4.9% 1RM) for both groups. Between-group differences in MPV attained to each %1RM were small (≤0.01 m·s-1) and not significant (p≥0.685). Similarly, the MPVTest (0.59±0.06 m·s-1) and MPV1RM (0.17±0.03 m·s-1) were identical for breast cancer survivors and healthy women. These results suggest that practitioners could use the same velocity parameters derived from the BP L-V relationship to prescribe this exercise in middle-aged women, regardless of whether they have suffered from breast cancer.

Inter-repetition Rest Impact on Percentage of Repetition Completed at Certain Velocity Loss

This study examined the impact of different inter-repetition rest (IRR) configurations (zero seconds [IRR0], three seconds [IRR3], and self-selected less than five seconds [SSIRR]) on estimating the number of repetitions (Nrep) and the percentage of completed repetitions relative to the maximum number of repetitions possible to failure (%rep) after reaching 10%, 20%, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLT). Eighteen men completed three sessions, each with a different IRR configuration, separated by 48-72 hours. Single sets of repetitions to momentary muscular failure were performed against 65%, 75%, and 85% of the one-repetition maximum during free-weight back squat and bench press exercises. No significant differences were reported between IRR configurations for the Nrep (P≥0.089) and %rep (P≥0.061), except for %rep after reaching the 20-30%VLT against 65%1RM and the 10-20%VLT against 75%1RM in the bench press exercise (P≤0.048). Additionally, both Nrep and %rep exhibited high interindividual variability (between-subject CV=14-79%) across the different IRR configurations. The individual %rep-%VLT relationships were slightly stronger than the general %rep-%VLT relationships (median R 2 =0.914-0.971 vs. 0.698-0.900). Overall, regardless of the IRR configuration, this novel velocity-based approach does not guarantee the same effort levels across subjects in the free-weight back squat and bench press sets.

The Effect of Various Training Variables on Developing Muscle Strength in Velocity-based Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Velocity-based training is an advanced auto-regulation method that uses objective indices to dynamically regulate training loads. However, it is unclear currently how to maximize muscle strength with appropriate velocity-based training settings. To fill this gap, we conducted a series of dose-response and subgroup meta-analyses to check the effects of training variables/parameters, such as intensity, velocity loss, set, inter-set rest intervals, frequency, period, and program, on muscle strength in velocity-based training. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane. One repetition maximum was selected as the outcome to indicate muscle strength. Eventually, twenty-seven studies with 693 trained individuals were included in the analysis. We found that the velocity loss of 15 to 30%, the intensity of 70 to 80%1RM, the set of 3 to 5 per session, the inter-set rest interval of 2 to 4 min, and the period of 7 to 12 weeks could be appropriate settings for developing muscle strength. Three periodical programming models in velocity-based training, including linear programming, undulating programming, and constant programming, were effective for developing muscle strength. Besides, changing periodical programming models around every 9 weeks may help to avoid a training plateau in strength adaption.

Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture are not meaningfully conditioned by training free-weight versus machine-based exercises: Challenging a traditional assumption using the velocity-based method

BACKGROUND

Although the superior effectiveness of free-weight over machine-based training has been a traditionally widespread assumption, longitudinal studies comparing these training modalities were scarce and heterogeneous.

OBJECTIVE

This research used the velocity-based method to compare the effects of free-weight and machine-based resistance training on athletic performance and muscle architecture.

METHODS

Thirty-four resistance-trained men participated in an 8-week resistance training program allocated into free-weight (n = 17) or machine-based (n = 17) groups. Training variables (intensity, intraset fatigue, and recovery) were identical for both groups, so they only differed in the use of a barbell or specific machines to execute the full squat, bench press, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The velocity-based method was implemented to accurately adjust the planned intensity. Analysis of covariance and effect size (ES) statistics were used to compare both training modalities on a comprehensive set of athletic and muscle architecture parameters.

RESULTS

No between-group differences were found for any athletic (p ≥ 0.146) and muscle architecture (p ≥ 0.184) variable. Both training modalities significantly and similarly improved vertical jump (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.45, p ≤ 0.001; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.41, p ≤ 0.001) and lower limb anaerobic capacity (Free-weight: ES ≥ 0.39, p ≤ 0.007; Machine-based: ES ≥ 0.31, p ≤ 0.003). Additionally, the machine-based group meaningfully enhanced upper limb anaerobic power (ES = 0.41, p = 0.021), whereas the free-weight group significantly improved the change of direction (ES = -0.54, p = 0.003) and 2/6 balance conditions analyzed (p ≤ 0.012). Changes in sprint capacity (ES ≥ -0.13, p ≥ 0.274), fascicle length, and pennation angle (ES ≤ 0.19, p ≥ 0.129) were not significant for either training modality.

CONCLUSION

Adaptations in athletic performance and muscle architecture would not be meaningfully influenced by the resistance modality trained.

Upper-lower body super-sets vs. traditional sets for inducing chronic athletic performance improvements

Background

To promote chronic adaptations, resistance training needs the manipulation of different variables, among them, the order of the exercises and sets. Specifically, for velocity-based training, paired exercises alternating upper and/or lower-body muscle groups appear to be a good choice to promote neuromuscular adaptations.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the effect of two velocity-based training programs only differing in the set configuration on muscle strength, muscular endurance and jump performance.

Methods

Moderately strength-trained men were allocated into a traditional (TS, n= 8) or alternating sets (AS, n= 9) configuration group to perform a 6-week velocity-based training program using the full squat (SQ) and bench press (BP) exercises. The TS group completed all sets of the full squat (SQ) exercise before performing the bench press (BP) sets, whereas the AS group completed the first set of each exercise in an alternating manner. Training frequency, relative load, number of sets, percentage of velocity loss (%VL) within the set and inter-set rest were matched for both groups. Countermovement jump height (CMJ), load (kg)-velocity relationship, predicted 1RM, and muscular endurance for each exercise were evaluated at pre- and post-training.

Results

The TS and AS groups obtained similar and non-significant improvements in CMJ (3.01 ± 4.84% and 3.77 ± 6.12%, respectively). Both groups exhibited significant and similar increases in muscle strength variables in SQ (6.19-11.55% vs. 6.90-011.76%; p = 0.033-0.044, for TS and AS, respectively), BP (6.19-13.87% and 3.99-9.58%; p = 0.036-0.049, for TS and AS group, respectively), and muscular endurance in BP (7.29 ± 7.76% and 7.72 ± 9.73%; p = 0.033, for the TS and AS group, respectively). However, the AS group showed a greater improvement in muscular endurance in SQ than the TS group (10.19 ± 15.23% vs. 2.76 ± 7.39%; p = 0.047, respectively). Total training time per session was significantly shorter (p = 0.000) for AS compared to TS group.

Conclusions

Training programs performing AS between SQ and BP exercises with moderate loads and %VL induce similar jump and strength improvements, but in a more time-efficient manner, than the traditional approach.

Estimating the relative load from movement velocity in the seated chest press exercise in older adults

AIM

This study aimed to i) determine the load-velocity relationship in the seated chest press in older adults, ii) compare the magnitude of the relationship between peak and mean velocity with the relative load, and iii) analyze the differences between sexes in movement velocity for each relative load in the chest press.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-two older adults (17 women and 15 men; 79.6±7.7 years) performed a chest press progressive loading test up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM). The fastest peak and mean velocity reached with each weight were analyzed. Quadratic equations were developed for both sexes and the effectiveness of the regression model was analyzed through a residual analysis. The equations were cross-validated, considering the holdout method. The independent samples t-test analyzed i) the differences in the magnitude of the relationship between peak and mean velocity with the relative load and ii) the differences between sexes in the peak and mean velocity for each relative load.

RESULTS

It was possible to observe very strong quadratic load-velocity relationships in the seated chest press in women (peak velocity: r2 = 0.97, standard error of the estimate (SEE) = 4.5% 1RM; mean velocity: r2 = 0.96, SEE = 5.3% 1RM) and men (peak velocity: r2 = 0.98, SEE = 3.8% 1RM; mean velocity: r2 = 0.98, SEE = 3.8% 1RM) without differences (p>0.05) in the magnitude of the relationship between peak and mean velocity with the relative load. Furthermore, there was no overfitting in the regression models due to the high and positive correlation coefficients (r = 0.98-0.99). Finally, men presented higher (p<0.001) lifting velocities than women in almost all relative loads, except for 95-100% 1RM (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Measuring repetition velocity during the seated chest press is an objective approach to estimating the relative load in older adults. Furthermore, given the velocity differences between older women and men at submaximal loads, it is recommended to use sex-specific equations to estimate and prescribe the relative loads in older adults.

The Acute and Chronic Effects of Implementing Velocity Loss Thresholds During Resistance Training: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Evaluation of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Velocity loss (VL) experienced in a set during resistance training is often monitored to control training volume and quantify acute fatigue responses. Accordingly, various VL thresholds are used to prescribe resistance training and target different training adaptations. However, there are inconsistencies in the current body of evidence regarding the magnitude of the acute and chronic responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to (1) evaluate the acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to the amount of VL experienced during resistance training; (2) synthesize the available evidence on the chronic effects of different VL thresholds on training adaptations; and (3) provide an overview of the factors that might differentially influence the magnitude of specific acute and chronic responses to VL during resistance training.

METHODS

This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were searched, and studies were included if they were written in English, prescribed resistance training using VL, and evaluated at least one (1) acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, or perceptual response or (2) training adaptation. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. Multilevel and multivariate meta-regressions were performed where possible.

RESULTS

Eighteen acute and 19 longitudinal studies met the inclusion criteria, of which only one had more than one risk of bias item assessed as high risk. Based on the included acute studies, it seems that the number of repetitions per set, blood lactate concentration, and rating of perceived exertion generally increase, while countermovement jump height, running sprint times, and velocity against fixed loads generally decrease as VL increases. However, the magnitude of these effects seems to be influenced, among other factors, by the exercise and load used. Regarding training adaptations, VL experienced during resistance training did not influence muscle strength and endurance gains. Increases in VL were associated with increases in hypertrophy (b = 0.006; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.001, 0.012), but negatively affected countermovement jump (b = - 0.040; 95% CI - 0.079, - 0.001), sprint (b = 0.001; 95% CI 0.001, 0.002), and velocity against submaximal load performance (b = - 0.018; 95% CI - 0.029, - 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A graded relationship exists between VL experienced during a set and acute training volume, neuromuscular, metabolic, and perceptual responses to resistance training. However, choice of exercise, load, and individual trainee characteristics (e.g., training history) seem to modulate these relationships. The choice of VL threshold does not seem to affect strength and muscle endurance gains whereas higher VL thresholds are superior for enhancing hypertrophy, and lower VL thresholds are superior for jumping, sprinting, and velocity against submaximal loads performance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The original protocol was prospectively registered ( https://osf.io/q4acs/ ) with the Open Science Framework.

Toward a New Paradigm in Resistance Training by Means of Velocity Monitoring: A Critical and Challenging Narrative

For more than a century, many concepts and several theories and principles pertaining to the goals, organization, methodology and evaluation of the effects of resistance training (RT) have been developed and discussed between coaches and scientists. This cumulative body of knowledge and practices has contributed substantially to the evolution of RT methodology. However, a detailed and rigorous examination of the existing literature reveals many inconsistencies that, unless resolved, could seriously hinder further progress in our field. The purpose of this review is to constructively expose, analyze and discuss a set of anomalies present in the current RT methodology, including: (a) the often inappropriate and misleading terminology used, (b) the need to clarify the aims of RT, (c) the very concept of maximal strength, (d) the control and monitoring of the resistance exercise dose, (e) the existing programming models and (f) the evaluation of training effects. A thorough and unbiased examination of these deficiencies could well lead to the adoption of a revised paradigm for RT. This new paradigm must guarantee a precise knowledge of the loads being applied, the effort they involve and their effects. To the best of our knowledge, currently this can only be achieved by monitoring repetition velocity during training. The main contribution of a velocity-based RT approach is that it provides the necessary information to know the actual training loads that induce a specific effect in each athlete. The correct adoption of this revised paradigm will provide coaches and strength and conditioning professionals with accurate and objective information concerning the applied load (relative load, level of effort and training effect). This knowledge is essential to make rational and informed decisions and to improve the training methodology itself.

The Role of Velocity-Based Training (VBT) in Enhancing Athletic Performance in Trained Individuals: A Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials

Velocity-based training (VBT) is a rising auto-regulation method that dynamically regulates training loads to promote resistance training. However, the role of VBT in improving various athletic performances is still unclear. Hence, the presented study aimed to examine the role of VBT in improving lower limbs’ maximum strength, strength endurance, jump, and sprint performance among trained individuals. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on VBT for lower limb strength training via databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane, CNKI (in Chinese), and Wanfang Database (in Chinese). Controlled trials that deployed VBT only without extra training content were considered. Eventually, nine studies with a total of 253 trained males (at least one year of training experience) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results suggest that VBT may effectively enhance lower limbs’ maximum strength (SMD = 0.76; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), strength endurance (SMD = 1.19; p < 0.001; I2 = 2%), countermovement jump (SMD = 0.53; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), and sprint ability (SMD of sprint time = −0.40; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). These findings indicate the positive role of VBT in serving athletic training. Future research is warranted to focus on the effect of velocity loss of VBT on athletic performance.

Strength and Athletic Adaptations Produced by 4 Programming Models: A Velocity-Based Intervention Using a Real-Context Routine

PURPOSE

To compare the strength and athletic adaptations induced by 4 programming models.

METHODS

Fifty-two men were allocated into 1 of the following models: linear programming (intensity increased while intraset volume decreased), undulating programming (intensity and intraset volume were varied in each session or set of sessions), reverse programming (intensity decreased while intraset volume increased), or constant programming (intensity and intraset volume kept constant throughout the training plan). All groups completed a 10-week resistance-training program made up of the free-weight bench press, squat, deadlift, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The 4 models used the same frequency (2 sessions per week), number of sets (3 per exercise), interset recoveries (4 min), and average intensity throughout the intervention (77.5%). The velocity-based method was used to accurately adjust the planned intensity for each model.

RESULTS

The 4 programming models exhibited significant pre-post changes in most strength variables analyzed. When considering the effect sizes for the 5 exercises trained, we observed that the undulating programming (mean effect size = 0.88-2.92) and constant programming (mean effect size = 0.61-1.65) models induced the highest and lowest strength enhancements, respectively. Moreover, the 4 programming models were found to be effective to improve performance during shorter (jump and sprint tests) and longer (upper- and lower-limb Wingate test) anaerobic tasks, with no significant differences between them.

CONCLUSION

The linear, undulating, reverse, and constant programming models are similarly effective to improve strength and athletic performance when they are implemented in a real-context routine.

Velocity-Based Resistance Training on 1-RM, Jump and Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

Weight resistance training (RT) has been shown to positively influence physical performance. Within the last two decades, a methodology based on monitoring RT through movement velocity (also called velocity-based resistance training, VBRT) has emerged. The aim of this PRISMA-based systematic review was to evaluate the effect of VBRT programs on variables related to muscle strength (one-repetition maximum, 1-RM), and high-speed actions (vertical jump, and sprint performance) in trained subjects. The search for published articles was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, SPORT Discus/EBSCO, OVID, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases using Boolean algorithms independently. A total of 22 studies met the inclusion criteria of this systematic review (a low-to-moderate overall risk of bias of the analyzed studies was detected). VBRT is an effective method to improve 1-RM, vertical jump and sprint. According to the results of the analyzed studies, it is not necessary to reach high muscle failure in order to achieve the best training results. These findings reinforce the fact that it is possible to optimize exercise adaptations with less fatigue. Future studies should corroborate these findings in female population.

Improving resistance training prescription through the load-velocity relationship in breast cancer survivors: The case of the leg-press exercise

The aims of this study were: (i) to analyse the load-velocity relationship in the bilateral leg-press exercise in female breast cancer survivors, (ii) to assess whether mean velocity (MV) or peak velocity (PV) show stronger relationship with the relative load, and (iii) to examine whether linear (LA) or polynomic (PA) adjustment predict the velocities associated with each %1RM with greater precision. Twenty-two female breast cancer survivors (age: 50.2 ± 10.8 years, weight: 69.6 ± 15.2 kg, height: 160.51 ± 5.25 cm) completed an incremental load test until 1RM in the bilateral leg-press exercise. The MV and the PV of the concentric phase were measured in each repetition using a linear velocity transducer, and were analysed by regression models using LA and PA. A very close relationship of MV (R²= 0.924; p < 0.0001; SEE = 0.08m^.s^-1 by LA, and R² = 0.952; p < 0.0001; SEE = 0.063 m^.s^-1 by PA) and PV (R² = 0.928; p < 0.0001; SEE = 0.119 m^.s^-1 by LA and R² = 0.941; p < 0.0001; SEE = 0.108 m^.s^-1 by PA) with %1RM were observed. The MV of 1RM was 0.24 ± 0.03 m·s^-1, whereas the PV at 1RM was 0.60 ± 0.10 m^.s^-1. A comprehensive analysis of the bilateral leg-press load-velocity relationship in breast cancer survivors is presented. The results suggest that MV is the most recommendable velocity variable to prescribe the relative load during resistance training, and that the PA presents better accuracy to predict velocities associated with each %1RM, although LA is sufficiently valid to use this model as an alternative to the quadratic model. The implications for resistance training in breast cancer are discussed.