Improved Strength and Recovery After Velocity-Based Training: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) protocols do not further increase jumping performance beyond warm-up effects: findings from three acute randomized crossover trials

Introduction: Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) cannot be clearly distinguished from and may be explained in large by warm-up effects. To disentangle PAPE from a systemic warm-up effect, we conducted three randomized crossover trials (RCT). Methods: Each RCT consisted of a familiarization/one-repetition-maximum (1RM) assessment session followed by two interventional sessions (random order). In Study I, 18 participants (age: 26 ± 4 years; height: 1.84 ± 0.06 m; mass: 83.7 ± 8.7 kg; Squat-1RM: 146 ± 19 kg) performed either a 3-s isometric squat at 130%1RM or a 6-s isometric squat at 65%1RM. In Study II, 28 participants (11 female; age: 23 ± 3 years; height: 1.77 ± 0.08 m; mass: 76.5 ± 10.4 kg; Squat-1RM: 109 ± 38 kg) completed either Squat (3 × 3 repetitions, 85%1RM) or local electromyostimulation of the quadriceps muscle (85% of individual pain threshold). In Study III, 20 participants (6 female, age: 25.0 ± 3.5 years, mass: 78.5 ± 15.8 kg, height: 1.75 ± 0.08 m; SQ-1RM: 114 ± 33 kg, chest-press-1RM: 74 ± 29 kg) performed either squats or chest press (4 repetitions, 80%1RM). Counter-Movement-Jump height (CMJ) was assessed after a general (PRE) and/or muscle-specific warm-up (POST_WU) and for up to 11 min after the PAPE protocols. To identify possible differences in CMJ between the experimental conditions, mixed-design ANOVA models were used for each study individually, with condition and time modelled as fixed effects, while participants were included as a random effect blocking factor. The level of statistical significance was set at α = 5%. Results: In studies I and II, significant effects for time (p < 0.05, ωp 2 = 0.06 and p < 0.001, ωp 2 = 0.43) were found with the highest CMJ compared to all other time points at PRE (≤8.2 ± 4.6%, standardized mean difference: ≤0.39), regardless of condition. In study III, no significant effects were observed. Discussion: Thus, PAPE protocols do not further improve jumping performance compared to a general and muscle-specific traditional warm-up. Prior to tasks requiring explosive strength, general and sport-specific warm-up strategies should be used.

Exploring the Dose-Response Relationship Between Estimated Resistance Training Proximity to Failure, Strength Gain, and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Series of Meta-Regressions

BACKGROUND

The proximity to failure in which sets are terminated has gained attention in the scientific literature as a potentially key resistance training variable. Multiple meta-analyses have directly (i.e., failure versus not to failure) or indirectly (e.g., velocity loss, alternative set structures) evaluated the effect of proximity to failure on strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes categorically; however, the dose-response effects of proximity to failure have not been analyzed collectively in a continuous manner.

OBJECTIVE

To meta-analyze the aforementioned areas of relevant research, proximity to failure was quantified as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR). Importantly, the RIR associated with each effect in the analysis was estimated on the basis of the available descriptions of the training interventions in each study. Data were extracted and a series of exploratory multilevel meta-regressions were performed for outcomes related to both strength and muscle hypertrophy. A range of sensitivity analyses were also performed. All models were adjusted for the effects of load, method of volume equating, duration of intervention, and training status.

RESULTS

The best fit models for both strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes demonstrated modest quality of overall fit. In all of the best-fit models for strength, the confidence intervals of the marginal slopes for estimated RIR contained a null point estimate, indicating a negligible relationship with strength gains. However, in all of the best-fit models for muscle hypertrophy, the marginal slopes for estimated RIR were negative and their confidence intervals did not contain a null point estimate, indicating that changes in muscle size increased as sets were terminated closer to failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The dose-response relationship between proximity to failure and strength gain appears to differ from the relationship with muscle hypertrophy, with only the latter being meaningfully influenced by RIR. Strength gains were similar across a wide range of RIR, while muscle hypertrophy improves as sets are terminated closer to failure. Considering the RIR estimation procedures used, however, the exact relationship between RIR and muscle hypertrophy and strength remains unclear. Researchers and practitioners should be aware that optimal proximity to failure may differ between strength and muscle hypertrophy outcomes, but caution is warranted when interpreting the present analysis due to its exploratory nature. Future studies deliberately designed to explore the continuous nature of the dose-response effects of proximity to failure in large samples should be considered.

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 Importance of Recovery in Resistance Training Microcycle Construction

Systemic resistance training aims to enhance performance by balancing stress, fatigue and recovery. While fatigue is expected, insufficient recovery may temporarily impair performance. The aim of this review was to examine evidence regarding manipulation of resistance training variables on subsequent effects on recovery and performance. PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, Scopus and CINAHL were searched. Only studies that investigated recovery between resistance training sessions were selected, with a total of 24 articles included for review. Training to failure may lengthen recovery times, potentially impairing performance; however, it may be suitable if implemented strategically ensuring adequate recovery between sessions of similar exercises or muscle groups. Higher volumes may increase recovery demands, especially when paired with training to failure, however, with wide variation in individual responses, it is suggested to start with lower volume, monitor recovery, and gradually increase training volume if appropriate. Exercises emphasising the lower body, multi-joint movements, greater muscle recruitment, eccentric contractions, and/or the lengthened position may require longer recovery times. Adjusting volume and frequency of these exercises can affect recovery demands depending on the goals and training logistics. Daily undulating programming may maximise performance on priority sessions while maintaining purposeful and productive easy days. For example, active recovery in the form of training opposing muscle groups, light aerobic cardio, or low-volume power-type training may improve recovery and potentially elicit a post activation potentiation priming effect compared to passive recovery. However, it is possible that training cessation may be adequate for allowing sufficient recovery prior to sessions of importance.

Comparison of 10% vs. 30% Velocity Loss during Squat Training with Low Loads on Strength and Sport-Specific Performance in Young Soccer Players

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two velocity-based resistance training (RT) programs using moderate loads (45-60% 1RM) but different magnitudes of velocity loss (VL) limits (10% vs. 30%) on the changes in physical performance in young soccer players. Twenty young soccer players were randomly allocated into two groups: VL10% (n = 10) and VL30% (n = 10). All participants were assessed before and after the 8-week RT program (twice a week) involving the following tests: 20 m running sprint (T20), countermovement jump (CMJ), kicking a ball (KB), and progressive loading test in the full squat (SQ) exercise. The RT program was conducted using only the SQ exercise and movement velocity was monitored in all repetitions. Significant 'time × group' interaction (p < 0.05) was observed for sprint performance, KB and 1RM in the SQ exercise in favor of VL10%. No significant changes between groups at post-test were observed. The VL10% resulted in significant (p < 0.05-0.001) intra-group changes in all variables analyzed, except for KB, whereas VL30% only showed significant (p < 0.05) performance increments in a sprint test and 1RM in the SQ exercise. The percentage of change and the intra-group's effect size were of greater magnitude for VL10% in all variables analyzed compared to VL30%. In conclusion, our results suggest that, for non-trained young soccer players, squat training with low to moderate relative loads and 10%VL is sufficient to elicit significant increases in muscle strength and sport-specific actions compared to 30%VL in the set.

Acute Effect of Different Velocity-Based Training Protocols on 2000-meter Rowing Ergometer Performance

ABSTRACT

Leandro Quidel-Catrilelbún, ME, Ruiz-Alias, SA, García-Pinillos, F, Ramirez-Campillo, R, and Pérez-Castilla, A. Acute effect of different velocity-based training protocols on 2000-m rowing ergometer performance. J Strength Cond Res 38(1): e8-e15, 2024-This study aimed to explore the acute effect of 4 velocity-based resistance training (VBT) protocols on 2000-m rowing ergometer (RE2000) time trial, as well as the behavior of the maximal neuromuscular capacities when RE2000 is performed alone or preceded by VBT protocols in the same session. Fifteen male competitive rowers (15-22 years) undertook 5 randomized protocols in separate occasions: (a) RE2000 alone (control condition); (b) VBT against 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) with a velocity loss in the set of 10% followed by RE2000 (VBT60-10 + RE2000); (c) VBT against 60% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 30% followed by RE2000 (VBT60-30 + RE2000); (d) VBT against 80% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 10% followed by RE2000 (VBT80-10 + RE2000); (e) VBT against 80% 1RM with a velocity loss in the set of 30% followed by RE2000 (VBT80-30 + RE2000). The load-velocity relationship (load-axis intercept [L0], velocity-axis intercept [v0], and area under the load-velocity relationship line [Aline]) was used to evaluate the maximal neuromuscular capacities during the prone bench pull exercise before and after each protocol. The time trial was significantly longer for VBT60-30 + RE2000 and VBT80-30 + RE2000 than for RE2000, VBT60-10 + RE2000 and VBT80-10 + RE2000 (all p < 0.001; ES = 0.10-0.15). L0 and Aline were significantly reduced after all protocols (p < 0.001; ES = 0.10-0.13), with Aline reduction more accentuated for VBT60-10 + RE2000, VBT60-30 + RE2000, VBT80-30 + RE2000, and RE2000 (all p = 0.001; ES = 0.11-0.18) than for VBT80-10 + RE2000 (p = 0.065; ES = 0.05). Therefore, VBT protocols with greater velocity loss in the set (30% vs. 10%) negatively affected subsequent rowing ergometer performance, in line with impairment in Aline pulling performance.

Interference Effects of Different Resistance-Training Protocols on Rowing Ergometer Performance: A Study on Semiprofessional Rowers

PURPOSE

To evaluate the interference effects of various resistance-training (RT) protocols on rowing ergometer performance.

METHODS

Fourteen semiprofessional male rowers randomly completed 5 protocols in separate sessions: (1) control-no RT session was performed, (2) upper-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the bench pull exercise, (3) upper-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the bench pull exercise, (4) lower-body high-fatigue-4 sets to failure during the leg-press exercise, and (5) lower-body low-fatigue-4 sets of 6 repetitions during the leg-press exercise. All sets were performed against the 12-repetition-maximum load with 2 minutes of interset rest. Following the completion of the protocols, subjects performed an all-out 1000-m rowing ergometer test.

RESULTS

Compared with the control condition, rowing ergometer performance was not significantly affected after the low-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≥ .487; Δ = 0.0%-0.2%; lower body: P ≥ .200; Δ = -0.2%-0.5%), while it significantly declined following high-fatigue RT protocols (upper body: P ≤ .001; Δ = 1.0%-2.0%; lower body: P ≤ .002; Δ = 2.1%-2.5%). The average heart rate was significantly lower for the control condition compared with all RT protocols (P ≤ .043; Δ = 1.0%-1.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

To minimize interference on rowing performance, coaches should prioritize the level of effort in RT protocols over specific exercises, specifically avoiding high-fatigue protocols that lead to failure before rowing practice.

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.

Acute and Chronic Performance Enhancement in Rowing: A Network Meta-analytical Approach on the Effects of Nutrition and Training

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis assessed via direct and indirect comparison the occurrence and magnitude of effects following different nutritional supplementation strategies and exercise interventions on acute and chronic rowing performance and its surrogates.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNET and SPORTDiscus searches were conducted until March 2022 to identify studies  that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) controlled trials, (b) rowing performance and its surrogate parameters as outcomes, and (c) peer-reviewed and published in English. Frequentist network meta-analytical approaches were calculated based on standardized mean differences (SMD) using random effects models.

RESULTS

71 studies with 1229 healthy rowers (aged 21.5 ± 3.0 years) were included and two main networks (acute and chronic) with each two subnetworks for nutrition and exercise have been created. Both networks revealed low heterogeneity and non-significant inconsistency (I² ≤ 35.0% and Q statistics: p ≥ 0.12). Based on P-score rankings, while caffeine (P-score 84%; SMD 0.43) revealed relevantly favorable effects in terms of acute rowing performance enhancement, whilst prior weight reduction (P-score 10%; SMD - 0.48) and extensive preload (P-score 18%; SMD - 0.34) impaired acute rowing performance. Chronic blood flow restriction training (P-score 96%; SMD 1.26) and the combination of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate and creatine (P-score 91%; SMD 1.04) induced remarkably large positive effects, while chronic spirulina (P-score 7%; SMD - 1.05) and black currant (P-score 9%; SMD - 0.88) supplementation revealed impairment effects.

CONCLUSION

Homogeneous and consistent findings from numerous studies indicate that the choice of nutritional supplementation strategy and exercise training regimen are vital for acute and chronic performance enhancement in rowing.

Jump and Sprint Performance Directly and 24 h After Velocity- vs. Failure-based Training

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, η_p ²≥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.

The Effect of Velocity Loss on Strength Development and Related Training Efficiency: A Dose-Response Meta-Analysis

The velocity loss method is often used in velocity-based training (VBT) to dynamically regulate training loads. However, the effects of velocity loss on maximum strength development and training efficiency are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis aiming to fill this research gap. A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies on VBT with the velocity loss method via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane. Controlled trials that compared the effects of different velocity losses on maximum strength were considered. One-repetition maximum (1RM) gain and 1RM gain per repetition were the selected outcomes to indicate the maximum strength development and its training efficiency. Eventually, nine studies with a total of 336 trained males (training experience/history ≥ 1 year) were included for analysis. We found a non-linear dose-response relationship (reverse U-shaped) between velocity loss and 1RM gain (p_{dose-response relationship} < 0.05, p_{non-linear relationship} < 0.05). Additionally, a negative linear dose-response relationship was observed between velocity loss and 1RM gain per repetition (p_{dose-response relationship} < 0.05, p_{non-linear relationship} = 0.23). Based on our findings, a velocity loss between 20 and 30% may be beneficial for maximum strength development, and a lower velocity loss may be more efficient for developing and maintaining maximum strength. Future research is warranted to focus on female athletes and the interaction of other parameters.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Methods for Controlling and Reporting Resistance Training Proximity to Failure: Current Issues and Future Directions

Resistance training variables such as volume, load, and frequency are well defined. However, the variable proximity to failure does not have a consistent quantification method, despite being defined as the number of repetitions in reserve (RIR) upon completion of a resistance training set. Further, there is between-study variability in the definition of failure itself. Studies have defined failure as momentary (inability to complete the concentric phase despite maximal effort), volitional (self-termination), or have provided no working definition. Methods to quantify proximity to failure include percentage-based prescription, repetition maximum zone training, velocity loss, and self-reported RIR; each with positives and negatives. Specifically, applying percentage-based prescriptions across a group may lead to a wide range of per-set RIR owing to interindividual differences in repetitions performed at specific percentages of 1 repetition maximum. Velocity loss is an objective method; however, the relationship between velocity loss and RIR varies set-to-set, across loading ranges, and between exercises. Self-reported RIR is inherently individualized; however, its subjectivity can lead to inaccuracy. Further, many studies, regardless of quantification method, do not report RIR. Consequently, it is difficult to make specific recommendations for per-set proximity to failure to maximize hypertrophy and strength. Therefore, this review aims to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current proximity to failure quantification methods. Further, we propose future directions for researchers and practitioners to quantify proximity to failure, including implementation of absolute velocity stops using individual average concentric velocity/RIR relationships. Finally, we provide guidance for reporting self-reported RIR regardless of the quantification method.

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.

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.