Superior Changes in Jump, Sprint, and Change-of-Direction Performance but Not Maximal Strength Following 6 Weeks of Velocity-Based Training Compared With 1-Repetition-Maximum Percentage-Based Training

Velocity-Based-Training Frequency Impacts Changes in Muscle Morphology, Neuromuscular Performance, and Functional Capability in Persons With Parkinson's Disease

ABSTRACT

Calaway, C, Walls, K, Levitt, H, Caplan, J, Mann, B, Martinez, K, Gastaldo, R, Haq, I, and Signorile, JF. Velocity-based-training frequency impacts changes in muscle morphology, neuromuscular performance, and functional capability in persons with Parkinson's disease. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-Velocity-based training (VBT) positively impacts muscle morphology and performance in persons with Parkinson's disease (PD); however, optimal training frequencies for VBT in patients with PD remain undetermined. Changes in ultrasound-determined muscle thickness (MT) and echo intensity (EI)-derived muscle quality of the rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL), neuromuscular performance, and functional capacity were examined following 2 VBT frequencies (2-3 d·wk -1 ) using 30% velocity loss thresholds for 12 weeks. Neuromuscular performance was assessed using computerized pneumatic resistance machines. For each variable, 2 (time) × 2 (group) repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine significant main effects and interactions. Significant time effects were seen for MT and EI of all muscles ( p < 0.05). Muscle thickness improvements included right VL (RVL) (0.171 ± 0.065 cm; p = 0.019), left VL (LVL) (0.214 ± 0.101 cm; p = 0.049), right RF (RRF) (0.194 ± 0.077 cm; p = 0.023), and left RF (LRF) (0.318 ± 0.109 cm; p = 0.010). For EI, improvements occurred in RVL (-18.688 ± 3.600; p = <0.001), LVL (-10.959 ± 4.894; p = 0.040), RRF (-9.516 ± 3.537; p = 0.016), and LRF (-9.018 ± 3.444; p = 0.019). Time effects were seen for leg-press 1-repetition maximum and peak power ( p < 0.01) and habitual walking speed ( p = 0.022), with a group by time interaction for maximal gait speed favoring the 3 d·wk -1 condition (∆0.15 m·s -1 , p = 0.002). The results indicate that VBT at 2 or 3 d·wk -1 can significantly improve muscle morphology, neuromuscular performance, and functional capability in patients with PD; however, improvements in maximal gait speed require 3 d·wk -1 . These findings provide flexibility when developing exercise prescriptions for patients with PD.

Optimizing strength training protocols in young females: A comparative study of velocity-based and percentage-based training programs

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of velocity-based strength training (VBT) and percentage-based strength training (PBT) on absolute strength, explosive strength, speed, and agility, as well as markers of muscle damage after 6 weeks of exercise programs. The study included 30 young female individuals, divided into three groups of 10 participants: VBT, PBT, and control group. The main findings indicated that the VBT group and PBT group showed significant improvement in 1RM squat exercise (Δ% 27.87 and Δ% 8.98, respectively) and 1RM bench press (Δ% 14.47 and Δ% 8.65, respectively), but a greater enhancement was observed in the VBT group. In addition, VBT induced substantial changes in SJ (Δ% 14.32) and CMJ height (Δ% 7.69), while PBT had an improvement only in the SJ test (Δ% 6.72). The improvement noted in the VBT group could be attributed to its ability to tailor training intensity according to the speed of movement execution. This approach allows athletes to perform each repetition as fast as possible, thus maintaining an optimal intensity for explosive strength development. The capacity of VBT to adapt training intensity based on the speed of movement execution may be the key factor contributing to these results. Therefore, coaches and athletes should consider implementing VBT as a valuable tool to optimize strength and power development. In conclusion, VBT induced greater improvement in the 1RM squat, 1RM bench press, SJ, and CMJ compared to the group that performed the traditional strength training modality. Therefore, VBT is considered a more effective training tool regarding the development of absolute and explosive strength in young women.

Application of a New Monitoring Variable: Effects of Power Loss During Squat Training on Strength Gains and Sports Performance

ABSTRACT

Zhang, M, Chen, L, Dai, J, Yang, Q, Huang, Z, He, J, Ji, H, Sun, J, and Li, D. Application of a new monitoring variable: Effects of power loss during squat training on strength gains and sports performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(4): 656-670, 2024-This study aimed to compare the effects of power loss (PL) autoregulated volume (PL10 and PL20) with standardized fixed-load (FL) prescription on strength, sports performance, and lean body mass (LBM). Thirty-five female basketball players from a sports college were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups (PL10, n = 12; PL20, n = 12; and FL, n = 11, respectively) that performed a resistance training (RT) program with wave-like periodization for 10 weeks using the back squat exercise. Assessments performed before (Pre) and after (Post) intervention included assessed 1 repetition maximum (1RM), body composition, 20-m sprint (T20M), change of direction (COD), and jump performance, including countermovement jump with arm swing, maximum vertical jump, and reactive strength index. Three groups showed significant improvements in strength (effect size [ES]: PL10 = 2.98, PL20 = 3.14, and FL = 1.90; p < 0.001) and jump performance (ES: PL10 = 0.74, PL20 = 1.50, and FL = 0.50; p <0.05-0.001). However, PL10 and PL20 demonstrated different advantages in sports performance compared with FL (group × time interaction, p <0.05). Specifically, PL10 significantly improved COD performance (ES = -0.79 ∼ -0.53, p <0.01), whereas PL20 showed greater improvements in sprint (ES = -0.57, p <0.05) and jump performance (ES = 0.67-1.64, p <0.01-0.001). Moreover, PL10 resulted in similar gains to PL20 and beneficial improvements compared with FL in LBM, despite performing the least repetitions. Overall, the study indicates that power loss-based autoregulation induces greater gains in LBM and sports performance, as well as eliciting a higher efficiency dose response than standardized FL prescriptions, particularly for PL10. Therefore, incorporating PL monitoring in training programs is recommended, and further studies on power-based RT would be worthwhile.

The Effects and Reproducibility of 10, 20, and 30% Velocity Loss Thresholds on Acute and Short-Term Fatigue and Recovery Responses

ABSTRACT

Weakley, J, Johnston, RD, Cowley, N, Wood, T, Ramirez-Lopez, C, McMahon, E, and García-Ramos, A. The effects and reproducibility of 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds on acute and short-term fatigue and recovery responses. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 465-473, 2024-This study aimed to establish the effects and reproducibility of implementing 10, 20, and 30% velocity loss thresholds (VLTs) during the free-weight barbell back squat on acute and short-term perceived soreness, neuromuscular fatigue, and physical performance. Using a repeated, counterbalanced, crossover design, 12 team-sport athletes completed on separate sessions 5 sets of the free-weight barbell back-squat until reaching VLTs of either 10, 20, or 30%. Outcomes were measured immediately postexercise and 24 hours after each session. To assess reproducibility, the same sessions were repeated after 4 weeks. Immediately postexercise, small differences in countermovement jump (CMJ) and 10-m sprint performance were observed between VLT conditions, whereas small to moderate differences in differential ratings of perceived exertion were reported (10% < 20% < 30%). At 24 hours, trivial differences in CMJ outcomes were found but small differences in 10-m sprint performance were detected between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). In addition, at 24 hours, a single small difference in radial deformation using tensiomyography was found between 10 and 30% conditions, whereas large to very large differences in perceived soreness were reported between conditions (10% < 20% < 30%). Finally, the standard error of measurement of all outcome measures at 24 hours were of a similar magnitude to those reported in tightly controlled, short-term studies. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that VLTs help control the fatigue outcomes that occur as a response to resistance training and that they are reproducible. Therefore, for practitioners who wish to prescribe resistance training and be confident in the subsequent fatigue response, it is strongly advised that VLTs are implemented.

Prediction of One Repetition Maximum in Free-Weight Back Squat Using a Mixed Approach: The Combination of the Individual Load-Velocity Profile and Generalized Equations

ABSTRACT

Fitas, A, Santos, P, Gomes, M, Pezarat-Correia, P, Schoenfeld, BJ, and Mendonca, GV. Prediction of one repetition maximum in free-weight back squat using a mixed approach: the combination of the individual load-velocity profile and generalized equations. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 228-235, 2024-We aimed to develop a mixed methods approach for 1 repetition maximum (1RM) prediction based on the development of generalized equations and the individual load-velocity profile (LVP), and to explore the validity of such equations for 1RM prediction. Fifty-seven young men volunteered to participate. The submaximal load-velocity relationship was obtained for the free-weight parallel back squat. The estimated load at 0 velocity (LD0) was used as a single predictor, and in combination with the slope of the individual LVP, to develop equations predictive of 1RM. Prediction accuracy was determined through the mean absolute percent error and Bland-Altman plots. LD0 was predictive of 1RM ( p < 0.0001), explaining 70.2% of its variance. Adding the slope of the LVP to the model increased the prediction power of 1RM to 84.4% ( p < 0.0001). The absolute percent error between actual and predicted 1RM was lower for the predictions combining LD0 and slope (6.9 vs. 9.6%). The mean difference between actual and estimated 1RM was nearly zero and showed heteroscedasticity for the LD0 model, but not for the combined model. The limits of agreement error were of 31.9 and 23.5 kg for LD0 and LD0 combined with slope, respectively. In conclusion, the slope of the individual LVP adds predictive value to LD0 in 1RM estimation on a group level and avoids error trends in the estimation of 1RM over the entire spectrum of muscle strength. However, the use of mixed methods does not reach acceptable accuracy for 1RM prediction of the free-weight back squat on an individual basis.

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.

The Effect of Feedback on Resistance Training Performance and Adaptations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Augmented feedback is often used during resistance training to enhance acute physical performance and has shown promise as a method of improving chronic physical adaptation. However, there are inconsistencies in the scientific literature regarding the magnitude of the acute and chronic responses to feedback and the optimal method with which it is provided.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) establish the evidence for the effects of feedback on acute resistance training performance and chronic training adaptations; (2) quantify the effects of feedback on acute kinematic outcomes and changes in physical adaptations; and (3) assess the effects of moderating factors on the influence of feedback during resistance training.

METHODS

Twenty studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. This review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases were searched, and studies were included if they were peer-reviewed investigations, written in English, and involved the provision of feedback during or following dynamic resistance exercise. Furthermore, studies must have evaluated either acute training performance or chronic physical adaptations. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Downs and Black assessment tool. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed to quantify the effects of feedback on acute and chronic training outcomes.

RESULTS

Feedback enhanced acute kinetic and kinematic outputs, muscular endurance, motivation, competitiveness, and perceived effort, while greater improvements in speed, strength, jump performance, and technical competency were reported when feedback was provided chronically. Furthermore, greater frequencies of feedback (e.g., following every repetition) were found to be most beneficial for enhancing acute performance. Results demonstrated that feedback improves acute barbell velocities by approximately 8.4% (g = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.90). Moderator analysis revealed that both verbal (g = 0.47, 95% CI 0.22-0.71) and visual feedback (g = 1.11, 95% CI 0.61-1.61) were superior to no feedback, but visual feedback was superior to verbal feedback. For chronic outcomes, jump performance might have been positively influenced (g = 0.39, 95% CI - 0.20 to 0.99) and short sprint performance was likely enhanced (g = 0.47, 95% CI 0.10-0.84) to a greater extent when feedback is provided throughout a training cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback during resistance training can lead to enhanced acute performance within a training session and greater chronic adaptations. Studies included in our analysis demonstrated a positive influence of feedback, with all outcomes showing superior results than when no feedback is provided. For practitioners, it is recommended that high-frequency, visual feedback is consistently provided to individuals when they complete resistance training, and this may be particularly useful during periods of low motivation or when greater competitiveness is beneficial. Alternatively, researchers must be aware of the ergogenic effects of feedback on acute and chronic responses and ensure that feedback is standardised when investigating resistance training.

The effectiveness of adjusting resistance training loads through velocity-based techniques in experienced sprinters: a case series study

Introduction: This study aimed to determine if adjusting the loads via velocity-based training (VBT) in each session is more efficient in monitoring the relative intensity than programming loads assessing 1RM pre-training. Methods: To achieve this, six national level sprinters were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., adjusting loads (AL, n = 3) and not adjusting loads (NAL, n = 3), during twelve sessions of a squat training (ST) program. During this training intervention, the AL group adjusted the intensity for each session in the squat exercise depending on the speed the load was lifted after warmup. The NAL group, instead, progressed in the squat exercise referring to the 1RM estimated at pre-test. In addition, Parallel Squat (PSQ), Countermovement Jump (CMJ), Squat Jump (SJ), 30 m sprint standing start (30S) and 30 m sprint flying start (30F) tests were carried out before and after conducting the ST program. Results: Interestingly, AL performed the ST near their estimated velocities at 70%-75% 1RM, however with a wider gap at 80%-85% 1RM. The NAL group, instead, did not presented such a detectable behaviour across the whole ST. Moreover, both groups demonstrated improved performances in PSQ, CMJ, and SJ, whereas there were little changes in 30S and 30F after ST. Additionally, AL obtained a greater effect size than NAL in PSQ (0.60 vs. 0.35) but lower effect size in CMJ, SJ, 30S, and 30F (0.41 vs. 0.63, 0.30 vs. 0.40, 0.04 vs. 0.28 and 0.22 vs. 0.24). However, percentage change was greater in AL in all tests. Discussion: Based on these findings, we can conclude that further investigation into the AL strategy in VBT is warranted for sprinter athletes' daily strength practices. The AL technique shows promise as a valuable tool for accurately adjusting and monitoring medium-high training loads to ensure they align with the intended intensity.

Implementing a velocity-based approach to resistance training: the reproducibility and sensitivity of different velocity monitoring technologies

This study examined the reproducibility of GymAware, PUSH2 and Vmaxpro velocity monitoring devices during resistance training (RT). The sensitivity of these devices to detect the smallest changes in velocity that correspond to true changes in RT performance was also investigated. Fifty-one resistance-trained men and women performed an incremental loading (1RM) test, and two repetitions to failure tests with different loads, 72 h apart. During all repetitions, mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV) were simultaneously recorded by two devices of each brand. Overall, GymAware was the most reliable and sensitive device for detecting the smallest changes in RT performance, regardless of the velocity metric used. Vmaxpro can be considered as an equivalent, cheaper alternative to GymAware for RT monitoring and prescription, but only if the MV metric is used. Caution should be exercised when using PUSH2 in practice due to their comparatively higher, unacceptable measurement error and generally low sensitivity to detect changes in RT performance. Collectively, these findings support the use of MV and PV from GymAware and MV from Vmaxpro devices for RT monitoring and prescription due to their low magnitudes of error; thus, allowing for the detection of meaningful changes in neuromuscular status and functional performance during RT.

The Criterion Validity and Between-Day Reliability of the Perch for Measuring Barbell Velocity During Commonly Used Resistance Training Exercises

ABSTRACT

Weakley, J, Munteanu, G, Cowley, N, Johnston, R, Morrison, M, Gardiner, C, Pérez-Castilla, A, and García-Ramos, A. The criterion validity and between-day reliability of the Perch for measuring barbell velocity during commonly used resistance training exercises. J Strength Cond Res 37(4): 787-792, 2023-This study aimed to assess the criterion validity and between-day reliability (accounting for technological and biological variability) of mean and peak concentric velocity from the Perch measurement system. On 2 testing occasions, 16 subjects completed repetitions at 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, and 100% of 1-repetition maximum in the free-weight barbell back squat and bench press. To assess criterion validity, values from the Perch and a 3-dimensional motion capture system (criterion) were compared. Technological variability was assessed by determining whether the differences between the Perch and criterion for each load were comparable for both testing sessions, whereas between-day reliability with both technological and biological variability was calculated from Perch values across days. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate R2 and root mean square error, whereas Bland-Altman plots assessed magnitude of difference between measures. To support monitoring of athletes over time, standard error of measurement and minimum detectable changes (MDC) were calculated. There was excellent agreement between the Perch and criterion device, with mean velocity in both exercises demonstrating a mean bias ranging from -0.01 to 0.01 m·s -1 . For peak velocity, Perch underestimated velocity compared with the criterion ranging from -0.08 to -0.12 m·s -1 for the back squat and -0.01 to -0.02 m·s -1 for the bench press. Technological variability between-days were all less than the MDC. These findings demonstrate that the Perch provides valid and reliable mean and peak concentric velocity outputs across a range of velocities. Therefore, practitioners can confidently implement this device for the monitoring and prescription of resistance training.

Effects of Velocity-Based versus Percentage-Based Resistance Training on Explosive Neuromuscular Adaptations and Anaerobic Power in Sport-College Female Basketball Players

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on anaerobic ability, sprint performance, and jumping ability. Eighteen female basketball players from a Sport College were randomly divided into two groups: VBRT (n = 10) and PBRT (n = 8). The six-week intervention consisted of two sessions per week of free-weight back squats with linear periodization from 65% to 95%1RM. In PBRT, the weights lifted were fixed based on 1RM percentage, while in VBRT, the weights were adjusted based on individualized velocity profiles. The T-30m sprint time, relative power of countermovement jump (RP-CMJ), and Wingate test were evaluated. The Wingate test assessed peak power (PP), mean power (MP), fatigue index (FI), maximal velocity (Vmax), and total work (TW). Results showed that VBRT produced a very likely improvement in RP-CMJ, Vmax, PP, and FI (Hedges' g = 0.55, 0.93, 0.68, 0.53, respectively, p < 0.01). On the other hand, PBRT produced a very likely improvement in MP (Hedges' g = 0.38) and TW (Hedges' g = 0.45). Although VBRT showed likely favorable effects in RP-CMJ, PP, and Vmax compared to PBRT (p < 0.05 for interaction effect), PBRT produced greater improvements in MP and TW (p < 0.05 for interaction effect). In conclusion, PBRT may be more effective in maintaining high-power velocity endurance, while VBRT has a greater impact on explosive power adaptations.

Effect of Traditional, Rest Redistribution, and Velocity-Based Prescription on Repeated Sprint Training Performance and Responses in Semiprofessional Athletes

ABSTRACT

Weakley, J, Castilla, AP, Ramos, AG, Banyard, H, Thurlow, F, Edwards, T, Morrison, M, McMahon, E, and Owen, C. The effect of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based prescription on repeated sprint training performance and responses in semi-professional athletes. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of traditional, rest redistribution, and velocity-based repeated sprint training methods on repeated sprint performance, perceived effort, heart rate, and changes in force-velocity-power (FVP) profiles in male semiprofessional athletes. In a randomized crossover design, a traditional (2 sets of 6 repetitions [TRAD]), 2 different rest redistribution (4 sets of 3 repetitions [RR4] and 12 sets of 1 repetition [RR12]), and a 5% velocity loss (VL5%) (12 repetitions, with sets terminated when a 5% reduction in mean velocity had occurred) condition were completed. Mean and peak velocity, mean heart rate, and differential ratings of perceived exertion (dRPE) were measured throughout each session, while horizontal FVP profiles were assessed presession and postsession. The RR4 and RR12 conditions allowed the greatest maintenance of velocity, while the RR4, RR12, and VL5% had a moderate, significantly greater mean heart rate than the traditional condition. Trivial, nonsignificant differences between all conditions were observed in dRPE of the legs and breathlessness and FVP profiles. These findings indicate that rest redistribution can allow for greater maintenance of sprint velocity and heart rate, without altering perceived effort during repeated sprint training. In addition, velocity-loss thresholds may be a feasible method of prescription if athletes have diverse physical qualities and reductions in sprint performance during repeated sprint training are undesirable. Practitioners should consider these outcomes when designing repeated sprint training sessions because the strategic use of these methods can alter sprint performance and internal load without changing perceptions of intensity.

Changes in Muscle Deoxygenation During Squat Exercise After 6-Week Resistance Training With Different Percentages of Velocity Loss

ABSTRACT

Costilla, M, Casals, C, Marín-Galindo, A, Sánchez-Sixto, A, Muñoz-López, A, Sañudo, B, Corral-Pérez, J, and Ponce-González, JG. Changes in muscle deoxygenation during squat exercise after 6-week resistance training with different percentages of velocity loss. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The present study compared, for the first time, the effects of 6 weeks of 20% (20VL) vs. 40% (40VL) velocity loss (VL) resistance training (RT) programs on muscle oxygen dynamics during the squat exercise. Twenty-three young men (21.4 ± 2.4 years) were randomly allocated into the 20VL group (n = 8), 40VL group (n = 7), or control group (CG; n = 8). The RT program consisted of 3 sets of Smith machine back squat exercise at 20VL or 40VL with a 3-minute rest between sets, twice per week for 6 weeks. Tissue oxygenation index (TOI) was measured using near-infrared spectroscopy in the vastus medialis and vastus lateralis during a squat test (8-repetition 1 m·s-1 load test), and the maximum (maxTOI) and minimum (minTOI) TOIs were measured during a 3-min recovery period. After the 6-week RT program, TOI increased significantly at the beginning of the test in both muscles (during the first 4 repetitions in the vastus lateralis and 5 repetitions in the vastus medialis) in the 20VL group (p < 0.05), with nonsignificant changes in the 40VL group and CG. The maxTOI was significantly increased in the vastus medialis (+3.76%) and vastus lateralis (+3.97%) after the training only in the 20VL group (p < 0.05). The minTOI in the vastus medialis reached during the test remained unchanged postintervention for both training groups, with the CG showing significantly higher values compared with the 20VL group (+14.1%; p < 0.05). In conclusion, depending on the VL reached during a squat RT program, different changes in muscle oxygen dynamics can be expected. Training at 20% of VL improves metabolic efficiency and the reoxygenation peak after the set.

The effects of velocity-based versus percentage-based resistance training on athletic performances in sport-collegiate female basketball players

Introduction: The study compared the effects of 6-week (2 sessions/week) velocity-based resistance training (VBRT) and percentage-based resistance training (PBRT) on athletic performance in Sport-College female basketball players. Methods: Fifteen participants were assigned to the VBRT (n = 8) or PBRT (n = 7) groups. The load in VBRT group were determined through the sessional target velocity and velocity loss monitoring, whereas PBRT group used a fixed-load based on percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). Both groups completed intervention that involved the free weight back squat and bench press using the same relative load (linear periodization from 65% to 95% 1RM). Training loads data was continuously recorded. Measurements at baseline (T0) and post-training (T2) included 1RM, countermovement-jump (CMJ), squat-jump (SJ), eccentric-utilization-ratio (EUR), drop-jump height and reactive-strength-index (DJ, DJ-RSI), plyometric-push-up (PPU), 505 change-of-direction (COD), 10-m、20-m sprint (T-10、T-20), 17 × 15 m drill-lines (17-drill), Hexagon agility, and functional movement screen (FMS). A mid-term (T1) assessment was included to investigate the short-term effects of both methods and the fluctuation of personalized 1RM. Results: No between-group differences were observed at T0 for descriptive variables (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in strength gains for back squat and bench press, but VBRT showed likely to very likely favorable improvements in CMJ, SJ, EUR, DJ-RSI, Hexagon and COD among athletic performance. The VBRT showed likely to very likely improvements in 17-drill and DJ, while PBRT showed unclear effects. The lifted weights adjusted by VBRT method were higher than prescribed by PBRT (p < 0.05) for the same subjects. Conclusion: Compared with fixed-load PBRT, VBRT enhanced power and athletic performance despite similar strength gains. VBRT can be regarded as a more functional resistance-training method under linear periodization.

Half-Squat and Jump Squat Exercises Performed Across a Range of Loads: Differences in Mechanical Outputs and Strength Deficits

ABSTRACT

Loturco, I, McGuigan, MR, Freitas, TT, Bishop, C, Zabaloy, S, Mercer, VP, Moura, TBMA, Arruda, AFS, Ramos, MS, Pereira, LA, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Half-squat and jump squat exercises performed across a range of loads: differences in mechanical outputs and strength deficits. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2022-The aim of this study was to compare the peak force (PF), peak power (PP), and peak velocity (PV) outputs produced during half-squat (HS) and jump squat (JS) exercises executed at 20, 40, 60, and 80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) in the HS (HS 1RM) and to compute and compare the strength deficit (SDef) achieved in these exercises across these loads. Twenty-four national rugby union players (age: 25.7 ± 3.6 years) performed HS 1RM and a progressive loading test in the HS and JS exercises. The PF, PP, and PV values were obtained in all loads for both exercises, and the SDef was calculated as the percentage difference between the PF at distinct relative intensities and the PF at HS 1RM. The differences in HS and JS variables were determined using an analysis of variance with repeated measures. Higher PF, PP, and PV outputs were generated in the JS in comparison with the HS exercise (p < 0.05); moreover, the SDef magnitudes were significantly lower in the JS (p < 0.01), for all loading conditions. Importantly, the differences in SDef, and as a consequence, PF, PP, and PV decreased progressively with increasing load. Overall, the loaded JS exhibited increased levels of PF, PP, and PV and reduced levels of SDef when compared to the traditional HS performed across a range of loads. The JS is indicated to reduce the SDef and improve the athletes' ability to apply force at higher velocities. Nevertheless, with heavier loads (i.e., ≥80% HS 1RM), its potential advantages and effectiveness may be seriously compromised.

The Effects of Different Relative Loads in Weight Training on Acceleration and Acceleration from Flying Starts

The purpose of this review was to examine how different relative loads in weight training can improve acceleration over 10 m from a standing or flying start. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the following databases: PubMed, MedLine, Google Scholar, and SPORTDiscus. Studies were eligible if they met the following criteria: (1) participants were at least 15 years or older and healthy and injury free, (2) the study included at least one exercise for the lower body with a strength training frequency of at least once a week and included a training period of at least four weeks, and (3) interventions with clear pre- and post-test results on 10 m sprint or 10 m flying start are stated. Non-English-language articles were excluded. Percent change and between-group effect size (ES) were calculated to compare the effects of different training interventions. Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The results were categorized into four groups: (1) explosive weight training with light loads at 30–60% of 1-RM, (2) explosive weight training with moderate loads at 60–85% of 1-RM, (3) maximal weight training at 85–100% of 1-RM, and (4) hypertrophy training at 60–85% of 1-RM. At 10 m, all methods of weight training demonstrated improvements, and maximal weight training demonstrated the highest results with a large ES, while other approaches varied from very small to moderate ES. Weight training showed little progression with a significantly lower effect on flying start across all training methods, except for one group that trained power cleans (hypertrophy) where progress was large. To improve acceleration over the first 10 m, this review demonstrated maximal weight training as the preferred training method. For athletes with a pre-existing high level of strength, it could be more appropriate to use explosive training with light loads or a combination of the two. To a lesser extent, acceleration from a flying start could be improved using both training methods as well.

The effectiveness of traditional vs. velocity-based strength training on explosive and maximal strength performance: A network meta-analysis

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.

Alternatives to common approaches for training change of direction performance: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Research focuses heavily upon the effect of strength and power training on change of direction performance. The objective of this scoping review is to highlight alternative approaches to training change of direction.

METHODS

Four databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus) were searched with no date restrictions. To be included studies must (i) investigate change of direction performance following an intervention or investigate the relationships between variables of interest and change of direction performance; (ii) recruit participants > 18 years old; (iii) recruit participants involved in competitive sport. The majority of included studies investigated the effect of strength and/or power training, or, relationships between strength and/or power variables with change of direction performance.

RESULTS

Despite fewer studies, alternative training methods resulted in greater improvements (compared with strength and/or power) in change of direction performance, with smaller training durations. Few studies included reactive agility as an outcome measure.

CONCLUSION

Despite much of the literature focusing on strength and/or power, there are alternative training modalities that demonstrate merit for improving change of direction performance. Future studies should investigate the effect of alternative training interventions on reactive agility performance, to provide a more valid indication of transfer to competition.

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.

Comparison of the effects of velocity-based vs. traditional resistance training methods on adaptations in strength, power, and sprint speed: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and quality of evidence appraisal

We estimated the effectiveness of using velocity feedback to regulate resistance training load on changes in muscle strength, power, and linear sprint speed in apparently healthy participants. Academic and grey literature databases were systematically searched to identify randomised trials that compared a velocity-based training intervention to a 'traditional' resistance training intervention that did not use velocity feedback. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were pooled using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Four trials met the eligibility criteria, comprising 27 effect estimates and 88 participants. The main analyses showed trivial differences and imprecise interval estimates for effects on muscle strength (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.51-0.63; I² = 42.9%; 10 effects from 4 studies; low-quality evidence), power (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.28-0.49; I² = 13.5%; 10 effects from 3 studies; low-quality evidence), and sprint speed (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.72-0.53; I² = 30.0%; 7 effects from 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). The results were robust to various sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is currently no evidence that VBT and traditional resistance training methods lead to different alterations in muscle strength, power, or linear sprint speed.

Comparison of Velocity and Percentage-based Training on Maximal Strength：Meta-Analysis

The purpose was to analyze the comparison of velocity-based resistance training and one-repetition maximum (%1RM) percentage-based training in maximal strength improvement by meta-analyzing and to find the reasons for the controversial findings of different studies. Ten studies were included in the systematic review and seven were subjected to meta-analysis. A total of 139 subjects were selected from the included articles after exclusion, including athletes of different specialties (N=93) and non-athletes mainly from fitness groups (N=46). The overall effect size was SMD=0.26 (95%CL 0.03 to 0.49, P=0.03, I²=0). As for the comparison of the analysis of different intervention objects as subgroups, the effect size of athletes as the subgroup was 0.35 (95%CI 0.06 to 0.64, p=0.02, I²=0), indicating that in the RCT with athletes as the intervention target, the effect of VBRT in improving the maximal strength was significantly different from that of PBT. Velocity-based resistance training might be more effective than percentage-based training in maximal strength improvement, in which velocity-based resistance training is more suitable for athletes in season, while percentage-based training is more suitable for the general sports population. More high-quality researches should deal with the effect of other athletic performance with velocity-based resistance training in the future.

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

Background

As basketball match-play requires players to possess a wide range of physical characteristics, many tests have been introduced in the literature to identify talent and quantify fitness in various samples of players. However, a synthesis of the literature to identify the most frequently used tests, outcome variables, and normative values for basketball-related physical characteristics in adult male basketball players is yet to be conducted.

Objective

The primary objectives of this systematic review are to (1) identify tests and outcome variables used to assess physical characteristics in adult male basketball players across all competition levels, (2) report a summary of anthropometric, muscular power, linear speed, change-of-direction speed, agility, strength, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity in adult male basketball players based on playing position and competition level, and (3) introduce a framework outlining recommended testing approaches to quantify physical characteristics in adult male basketball players.

Methods

A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify relevant studies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies were required to: (1) be original research articles; (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) have full-text versions available in the English language; and (4) include the primary aim of reporting tests used and/or the physical characteristics of adult (i.e., ≥ 18 years of age) male basketball players. Additionally, data from the top 10 draft picks who participated in the National Basketball Association combined from 2011–12 to 2020–21 were extracted from the official league website to highlight the physical characteristics of elite 19- to 24-year-old basketball players.

Results

A total of 1684 studies were identified, with 375 being duplicates. Consequently, the titles and abstracts of 1309 studies were screened and 231 studies were eligible for full-text review. The reference list of each study was searched, with a further 59 studies identified as eligible for review. After full-text screening, 137 studies identified tests, while 114 studies reported physical characteristics in adult male basketball players.

Conclusions

Physical characteristics reported indicate a wide range of abilities are present across playing competitions. The tests and outcome variables reported in the literature highlight the multitude of tests currently being used. Because there are no accepted international standards for physical assessment of basketball players, establishing normative data is challenging. Therefore, future testing should involve repeatable protocols that are standardised and provide outcomes that can be monitored across time. Recommendations for testing batteries in adult male basketball players are provided so improved interpretation of data can occur.

Clinical Trial Registration

This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and allocated registration number CRD42020187151 on 28 April, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40279-021-01626-3.

The Effect of Load and Volume Autoregulation on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Autoregulation has emerged as a potentially beneficial resistance training paradigm to individualize and optimize programming; however, compared to standardized prescription, the effects of autoregulated load and volume prescription on muscular strength and hypertrophy adaptations are unclear. Our objective was to compare the effect of autoregulated load prescription (repetitions in reserve-based rating of perceived exertion and velocity-based training) to standardized load prescription (percentage-based training) on chronic one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength and cross-sectional area (CSA) hypertrophy adaptations in resistance-trained individuals. We also aimed to investigate the effect of volume autoregulation with velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% compared to > 25% on 1RM strength and CSA hypertrophy.

Methods

This review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus was conducted. Mean differences (MD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Sub-analyses were performed as applicable.

Results

Fifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis: six studies on load autoregulation and nine studies on volume autoregulation. No significant differences between autoregulated and standardized load prescription were demonstrated for 1RM strength (MD = 2.07, 95% CI – 0.32 to 4.46 kg, p = 0.09, SMD = 0.21). Velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% demonstrated significantly greater 1RM strength (MD = 2.32, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.31 kg, p = 0.02, SMD = 0.23) and significantly lower CSA hypertrophy (MD = 0.61, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.16 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.28) than velocity loss thresholds > 25%. No significant differences between velocity loss thresholds > 25% and 20–25% were demonstrated for hypertrophy (MD = 0.36, 95% CI – 0.29 to 1.00 cm², p = 0.28, SMD = 0.13); however, velocity loss thresholds > 25% demonstrated significantly greater hypertrophy compared to thresholds ≤ 20% (MD = 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.20 cm², p = 0.03, SMD = 0.34).

Conclusions

Collectively, autoregulated and standardized load prescription produced similar improvements in strength. When sets and relative intensity were equated, velocity loss thresholds ≤ 25% were superior for promoting strength possibly by minimizing acute neuromuscular fatigue while maximizing chronic neuromuscular adaptations, whereas velocity loss thresholds > 20–25% were superior for promoting hypertrophy by accumulating greater relative volume.

Protocol Registration The original protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42021240506) with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-021-00404-9.

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.

Feasibility of the 2-point method to determine the load-velocity relationship variables during the countermovement jump exercise

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of load-velocity (L-V) relationship variables obtained through the 2-point method using different load combinations and velocity variables.

METHODS

Twenty men performed 2 identical sessions consisting of 2 countermovement jumps against 4 external loads (20 kg, 40 kg, 60 kg, and 80 kg) and a heavy squat against a load linked to a mean velocity (MV) of 0.55 m/s (load_0.55). The L-V relationship variables (load-axis intercept (L₀), velocity-axis intercept (v₀), and area under the L-V relationship line (A_line)) were obtained using 3 velocity variables (MV, mean propulsive velocity (MPV), and peak velocity) by the multiple-point method including (20-40-60-80-load_0.55) and excluding (20-40-60-80) the heavy squat, as well as from their respective 2-point methods (20-load_0.55 and 20-80).

RESULTS

The L-V relationship variables were obtained with an acceptable reliability (coefficient of variation (CV) ≤ 7.30%; intra-class correlation coefficient ≥ 0.63). The reliability of L₀ and v₀ was comparable for both methods (CV_ratio (calculated as higher value/lower value): 1.11-1.12), but the multiple-point method provided A_line with a greater reliability (CV_ratio = 1.26). The use of a heavy squat provided the L-V relationship variables with a comparable or higher reliability than the use of a heavy countermovement jump load (CV_ratio: 1.06-1.19). The peak velocity provided the load-velocity relationship variables with the greatest reliability (CV_ratio: 1.15-1.86) followed by the MV (CV_ratio: 1.07-1.18), and finally the MPV. The 2-point methods only revealed an acceptable validity for the MV and MPV (effect size ≤ 0.19; Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient ≥ 0.96; Lin's concordance correlation coefficient ≥ 0.94).

CONCLUSION

The 2-point method obtained from a heavy squat load and MV or MPV is a quick, safe, and reliable procedure to evaluate the lower-body maximal neuromuscular capacities through the L-V relationship.

Effects of velocity based training vs. traditional 1RM percentage-based training on improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed performance: A Systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

There has been a surge of interest on velocity-based training (VBT) in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether VBT is more effective in improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed (CODs) than the traditional 1RM percentage-based training (PBT).

Objectives

To compare the training effects in VBT vs. PBT upon strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance.

Data sources

Web of science, PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI).

Study eligibility criteria

The qualified studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis must have included a resistance training intervention that compared the effects of VBT and PBT on at least one measure of strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs with participants aged ≥16 yrs. and be written in English or Chinese.

Methods

The modified Pedro Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects model was used to calculate the effects via the mean change and pre-SD (standard deviation). Mean difference (MD) or Standardized mean difference (SMD) was presented correspondently with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Six studies met the inclusion criteria including a total of 124 participants aged 16 to 30 yrs. The differences of training effects between VBT and PBT were not significant in back squat 1RM (MD = 3.03kg; 95%CI: -3.55, 9.61; I² = 0%) and load velocity 60%1RM (MD = 0.02m/s; 95%CI: -0.01,0.06; I² = 0%), jump (SMD = 0.27; 95%CI: -0.15,0.7; I² = 0%), linear sprint (MD = 0.01s; 95%CI: -0.06, 0.07; I² = 0%), and CODs (SMD = 0.49; 95%CI: -0.14, 1.07; I² = 0%).

Conclusion

Both VBT and PBT can enhance strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance effectively without significant group difference.

Autoregulation in Resistance Training for Lower Limb Tendinopathy: A Potential Method for Addressing Individual Factors, Intervention Issues, and Inadequate Outcomes

Musculoskeletal disorders, such as tendinopathy, are placing an increasing burden on society and health systems. Tendinopathy accounts for up to 30% of musculoskeletal disorders, with a high incidence in athletes and the general population. Although resistance training has shown short-term effectiveness in the treatment of lower limb tendinopathy, more comprehensive exercise protocols and progression methods are required due to poor long-term outcomes. The most common resistance training protocols are predetermined and standardized, which presents significant limitations. Current standardized protocols do not adhere to scientific resistance training principles, consider individual factors, or take the importance of individualized training into account. Resistance training programs in case of tendinopathy are currently not achieving the required intensity and dosage, leading to high recurrence rates. Therefore, better methods for individualizing and progressing resistance training are required to improve outcomes. One potential method is autoregulation, which allows individuals to progress training at their own rate, taking individual factors into account. Despite the finding of their effectiveness in increasing the strength of healthy athletes, autoregulation methods have not been investigated in case of tendinopathy. The purpose of this narrative review was 3-fold: firstly, to give an overview and a critical analysis of the individual factors involved in tendinopathy and current resistance training protocols and their limitations. Secondly, to give an overview of the history, methods, and application of autoregulation strategies both in sports performance and physiotherapy. Finally, a theoretical adaptation of a current tendinopathy resistance training protocol using autoregulation methods is presented, providing an example of how the method could be implemented in clinical practice or future research.

Assessment of Back-Squat Performance at Submaximal Loads: Is the Reliability Affected by the Variable, Exercise Technique, or Repetition Criterion?

This study aimed to compare the between-session reliability of different performance variables during 2 variants of the Smith machine back-squat exercise. Twenty-six male wrestlers performed 5 testing sessions (a 1-repetition maximum [1RM] session, and 4 experimental sessions [2 with the pause and 2 with the rebound technique]). Each experimental session consisted of performing 3 repetitions against 5 loads (45-55-65-75-85% of the 1RM). Mean velocity (MV), mean power (MP), peak velocity (PV), and peak power (PP) variables were recorded by a linear position transducer (GymAware PowerTool). The best and average scores of the 3 repetitions were considered for statistical analyses. The coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 3.89% (best PV score at 55% 1 RM using the pause technique) to 10.29% (average PP score at 85% 1 RM using the rebound technique). PP showed a lower reliability than MV, MP, and PV (CV_ratio ≥ 1.26). The reliability was comparable between the exercise techniques (CV_ratio = 1.08) and between the best and average scores (CV_ratio = 1.04). These results discourage the use of PP to assess back-squat performance at submaximal loads. The remaining variables (MV, MP, or PV), exercise techniques (pause or rebound), and repetition criteria (best score or average score) can be indistinctly used due to their acceptable and comparable reliability.

Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming

Strength and conditioning specialists commonly deal with the quantification and selection the setting of protocols regarding resistance training intensities. Although the one repetition maximum (1RM) method has been widely used to prescribe exercise intensity, the velocity-based training (VBT) method may enable a more optimal tool for better monitoring and planning of resistance training (RT) programs. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two RT programs only differing in the training load prescription strategy (adjusting or not daily via VBT) with loads from 50 to 80% 1RM on 1RM, countermovement (CMJ) and sprint. Twenty-four male students with previous experience in RT were randomly assigned to two groups: adjusted loads (AL) (n = 13) and non-adjusted loads (NAL) (n = 11) and carried out an 8-week (16 sessions) RT program. The performance assessment pre- and post-training program included estimated 1RM and full load-velocity profile in the squat exercise; countermovement jump (CMJ); and 20-m sprint (T20). Relative intensity (RI) and mean propulsive velocity attained during each training session (V_session) was monitored. Subjects in the NAL group trained at a significantly faster V_session than those in AL (p < 0.001) (0.88-0.91 vs. 0.67-0.68 m/s, with a ∼15% RM gap between groups for the last sessions), and did not achieve the maximum programmed intensity (80% RM). Significant differences were detected in sessions 3-4, showing differences between programmed and performed V_session and lower RI and velocity loss (VL) for the NAL compared to the AL group (p < 0.05). Although both groups improved 1RM, CMJ and T20, NAL experienced greater and significant changes than AL (28.90 vs.12.70%, 16.10 vs. 7.90% and -1.99 vs. -0.95%, respectively). Load adjustment based on movement velocity is a useful way to control for highly individualised responses to training and improve the implementation of RT programs.

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

Background

Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices.

Objective

A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises.

Results

A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review.

Conclusion

Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-020-01382-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Velocity Loss Thresholds Reliably Control Kinetic and Kinematic Outputs during Free Weight Resistance Training

Exercise velocity and relative velocity loss thresholds (VLTs) are commonly used in velocity-based resistance training. This study aims to quantify the between-day reliability of 10%, 20%, and 30% VLTs on kinetic and kinematic outputs, changes in external load, and repetition characteristics in well-trained athletes. Using a repeated, counter-balanced crossover design, twelve semi-professional athletes completed five sets of the back squat with an external load corresponding to a mean concentric velocity of ~0.70 m·s^-1 and a VLT applied. The testing sessions were repeated after four weeks of unstructured training to assess the long-term reliability of each VLT. A coefficient of variation (CV) <10% was used to classify outputs as reliable. Kinetic and kinematic outputs and external load were largely reliable, with only peak power during sets 2-5 within the 10% VLT condition demonstrating a CV >10% (CV: 11.14-14.92%). Alternatively, the repetitions completed within each set showed large variation (CV: 18.92-67.49%). These findings demonstrate that by utilizing VLTs, kinetic and kinematic outputs can be prescribed and replicated across training mesocycles. Thus, for practitioners wishing to reliably control the kinetic and kinematic stimulus that is being applied to their athletes, it is advised that a velocity-based approach is used.