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

The Impact of Different Velocity Losses on Post-Activation Performance Enhancement (PAPE) Effects in Sprint Athletes: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study

Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) can significantly improve athletic performance. This study investigated the effects of two different velocity loss (10% VL and 20% VL) protocols on PAPE in 20 m sprint performance among sprint athletes. Twenty-four male sprint athletes (100 m sprint time: 10.96 ± 0.15 s) participated in the study. A randomized crossover experimental design was used to compare the traditional group (TG) and 10% VL and 20% VL interventions. Sprint tests were conducted at 4, 8, 12, and 16 min post-intervention. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect between group and time on 20 m sprint performance (F = 2.817, p = 0.037, partial η2 = 0.585). Simple main effects analysis revealed significant improvements at 4 min for the 20% VL group (p < 0.05). Cohen's d values indicated improvements in 10 m sprint times at 8 min for all groups (TG: effect size (ES) = -0.270, 10% VL: ES = -0.038, 20% VL: ES = -0.279). Improvements in 20 m sprint times were observed at 4 min for the 20% VL group (ES = -0.296) and at 16 min for the 10% VL group (ES = -0.276). In conclusion, the velocity loss-based PAPE protocol (20% VL) demonstrated a superior induction of PAPE effects in sprint athletes at 4 min compared to traditional 1RM-based PAPE protocols. However, no significant differences were observed between the two protocols at 8, 12, and 16 min.

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.

Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): A Checklist Developed Using an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

The issues of replication and scientific transparency have been raised in exercise and sports science research. A potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability is to improve reporting quality and transparency. This study aims to formulate a reporting checklist as a supplement to the existing reporting guidelines, specifically for resistance exercise studies.

METHODS

PubMed (which covers Medline) and Scopus (which covers Medline, EMBASE, Ei Compendex, World Textile Index, Fluidex, Geobase, Biobase, and most journals in Web of Science) were searched for systematic reviews that comprised the primary studies directly comparing different resistance training methods. Basic data on the selected reviews, including on authors, publication years, and objectives, were summarized. The reporting items for the checklist were identified based on the objective of the reviews. Additional items from an existing checklist, namely the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template, a National Strength and Conditioning Association handbook, and an article from the EQUATOR library were incorporated into the final reporting checklist.

RESULTS

Our database search retrieved 3595 relevant records. After automatic duplicate removal, the titles and abstracts of the remaining 2254 records were screened. The full texts of 137 records were then reviewed, and 88 systematic reviews that met the criteria were included in the umbrella review.

CONCLUSION

Developed primarily by an umbrella review method, this checklist covers the research questions which have been systematically studied and is expected to improve the reporting completeness of future resistance exercise studies. The PRIRES checklist comprises 26 reporting items (39 subitems) that cover four major topics in resistance exercise intervention: 1) exercise selection, performance, and training parameters, 2) training program and progression, 3) exercise setting, and 4) planned vs actual training. The PRIRES checklist was designed specifically for reporting resistance exercise intervention. It is expected to be used with other reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials. This article presents only the development process and resulting items of the checklist. An accompanying article detailing the rationale for, the importance of, and examples of each item is being prepared.

REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the EQUATOR Network under the title "Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES)." PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235259.

Comparative effectiveness of school-based exercise interventions on physical fitness in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Schools provide a favorable setting for health education, however, the most effective school-based exercise mode for improving physical fitness remains unclear. This network meta-analysis was designed to assess and rank the comparative efficacy of six exercise modalities on physical fitness indicators in a school-based setting.

Methods

An online search of the Web of Science, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus databases was conducted. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials were considered. Outcomes included measures of anthropometry and body composition, muscular fitness, and cardiorespiratory fitness. Data were pooled with a random effects model using the frequentist framework.

Results

A total of 66 studies with 8,578 participants (48% girls) were included. High-intensity interval training was the most effective intervention reducing body mass index (mean difference (MD) = -0.60 kg·m^-2, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = -1.04 to -0.15, p = 0.009), elevating VO_2max (MD = 3.59 mL·kg^-1·min^-1, 95% CI = 2.45 to 4.74, p < 0.001), and 20-meter sprint performance (MD = -0.35 s, 95% CI = -0.55 to -0.14, p = 0.001). Aerobic training had the highest probability of reducing waist circumference (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.60, 95% CI = -0.88 to -0.32, p < 0.001). Active video games emerged as a promising modality for improving countermovement jump (MD = 2.43 cm, 95% CI = 0.06 to 4.80, p = 0.041) and shuttle running performance (SMD = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.29 to 1.43, p = 0.003). Strength training was the best exercise mode for improving standing long jump performance (SMD = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.98, p = 0.035) while combined training was rated the first for decreasing body fat percent (MD = -2.56%, 95% CI = -4.73 to -0.40, p = 0.022) and increasing push-up repetitions (SMD = 3.59, 95% CI = 0.81 to 6.37, p = 0.012).

Conclusion

School-based exercise interventions have multiple effects on physical fitness. The findings of this study will help to inform physical education teachers and coaches how best to deliver exercise programs in a school setting. Since the study was limited by the original research, the conclusions will require further verification using high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, Identifier: CRD42023401963.

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 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.