Concurrent Validity of a Velocity Perception Scale to Monitor Back Squat Exercise Intensity in Young Skiers

Does Fatigue Affect the Perception of Velocity Accuracy During Resistance Training?

ABSTRACT

Romagnoli, R and Piacentini, MF. Does fatigue affect the perception of velocity accuracy during resistance training? J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1243-1247, 2024-The purpose of this study was to investigate whether perception of barbell velocity (PV) is affected by fatigue induced by 2 different training protocols. Twenty-two subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups: 10% velocity loss group (VL10) and repetitions to failure group (EX). Both protocols included 5 sets at 75% 1 repetition maximum but differed in the number of repetitions performed (Reps). Perception of barbell velocity was assessed in the back squat exercise during a test with 3 blinded loads (heavy, medium, light) 1 day rested (REST) and 1 day immediately following 1 of the 2 designated training protocols (POST). The accuracy of the PV was analyzed by calculating the delta score (ds), that is, the difference between perceived velocity (Vp) and real velocity of the barbell (Vr). During training, each group performed significantly different Reps per set (VL10: 3.9 ± 1.4; EX: 13.8 ± 6.3, p < 0.001) and consequently reported different levels of perceived exertion and repetitions in reserve ( p < 0.001). Real velocity and ds did not change between REST and POST-VL10 conditions at all loads. Although a significant decrease in Vr was found at light and medium loads ( p < 0.05) between REST and POST in the EX-Group, no significant differences were detected in the ds. These results demonstrate that Vp is a stable parameter on which practitioners can base their training despite different levels of fatigue.

Validity of Rating of Perceived Exertion Scales in Relation to Movement Velocity and Exercise Intensity During Resistance-Exercise: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Movement velocity (MV) may be a valid tool to evaluate and control the load in resistance training (RT). The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) also enables practical load management. The relationship between RPE and MV may be used to monitor RT intensity.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the validity and practicality of RPE scales related to MV and training intensity in resistance exercise. We hypothesize a positive correlation among RPE, MV, and load intensity in RT. Therefore, RPE may serve as a supplementary indicator in monitoring RT load.

DATA SOURCES

Boolean algorithms were used to search several databases (SPORTDiscus, EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar).

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published from 2009 to 2023 included clinical trials (randomized or not) in healthy female and male subjects that analyzed the relationship between different RPE scales and MV in basic RT exercises.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were selected using different RPE scales with reported MV training loads. Participants included RT and untrained male and female subjects (15-31 years old). Two RPE scales (OMNI-RES and repetitions in reserve) were used. The selected studies showed moderate positive correlations among these RPE scales, MV, and training load (eg, percentage of 1-repetition maximum [%1-RM]). In addition, equations have been developed to estimate %1-RM and MV loss based on the OMNI-RES scale.

CONCLUSION

Studies show that RPE scales and MV constitute a valid, economic, and practical tool for assessing RT load progression and complementing other training monitoring variables. Exercise professionals should consider familiarizing participants with RPE scales and factors that might influence the perception of exertion (eg, level of training, motivation, and environmental conditions).

Can mental fatigue affect perception of barbell velocity in resistance training?

Perception of Velocity (PV) is the ability to estimate single repetition velocity during resistance training (RT) exercises. The main purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of Mental Fatigue (MF) on the accuracy of barbell PV. The secondary aims were to evaluate whether MF affected RT performance and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE; OMNI-RES) in the back squat. Twenty-four (14 Females, 10 Males) resistance-trained participants underwent 2 familiarization sessions and 1RM test for the back squat. In two separate sessions, PV was tested for light, medium, and heavy loads in 2 conditions in random order: at rest (REST) and in MF condition (POST-MF) induced by previous incongruent Stroop color-word task. MF and Motivation were assessed through visual analog scales (VAS; 0-100) before and after the Stroop task. For each load subjects performed 2 repetitions and reported the RPE value. Mean propulsive velocity (Vr) of the barbell was recorded with a linear encoder, while the perceived velocity (Vp) of the subjects was self-reported using the Squat-PV scale. The PV accuracy was calculated through the delta score (ds: Vp-Vr). Following the Stroop task MF increased significantly (p < 0.001; F (1, 23) = 52.572), while motivation decreased (p < 0.05; F (1, 23) = 7.401). Ds, Vr, and RPE did not show significant differences between conditions (p > 0.05) for the three loads analyzed. MF induced by previous demanding cognitive task did not affect PV accuracy. Furthermore, subjects maintained unchanged both RT performance and RPE values associated with each load, even when mentally fatigued.

Perception of Bar Velocity Loss in Resistance Exercises: Accuracy Across Loads and Velocity Loss Thresholds in the Bench Press

PURPOSE

Velocity-based training is used to prescribe and monitor resistance training based on velocity outputs measured with tracking devices. When tracking devices are unavailable or impractical to use, perceived velocity loss (PVL) can be used as a substitute, assuming sufficient accuracy. Here, we investigated the accuracy of PVL equal to 20% and 40% relative to the first repetition in the bench-press exercise.

METHODS

Following a familiarization session, 26 resistance-trained men performed 4 sets of the bench-press exercise using 4 different loads based on their individual load-velocity relationships (∼40%-90% of 1-repetition maximum [1RM]), completed in a randomized order. Participants verbally reported their PVL at 20% and 40% velocity loss during the sets. PVL accuracy was calculated as the absolute difference between the timing of reporting PVL and the actual repetition number corresponding to 20% and 40% velocity loss measured with a linear encoder.

RESULTS

Linear mixed-effects model analysis revealed 4 main findings. First, across all conditions, the absolute average PVL error was 1 repetition. Second, the PVL accuracy was not significantly different between the PVL thresholds (β = 0.16, P = .267). Third, greater accuracy was observed in loads corresponding to the midportion of the individual load-velocity relationships (∼50%-60% 1RM) compared with lighter (<50% 1RM, β = 0.89, P < .001) and heavier loads (>60% 1RM, 0.63 ≤ β ≤ 0.84, all P values < .001). Fourth, PVL accuracy decreased with consecutive repetitions (β = 0.05, P = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

PVL can be implemented as a monitoring and prescription method when velocity-tracking devices are impractical or absent.

Concurrent and Predictive Validity of an Exercise-Specific Scale for the Perception of Velocity in the Back Squat

BACKGROUND

the aim of the study was to develop and validate a specific perception velocity scale for the Back Squat exercise to discriminate the velocity of each repetition during a set.

METHODS

31 resistance trained participants completed 3 evaluation sessions, consisting of 3 blinded loads (light, medium, heavy). For each repetition, barbell mean velocity (Vr) was measured with a linear position transducer while perceived velocity (Vp) was reported using the Squat Perception of Velocity (PV) Scale.

RESULTS

Pearson correlation coefficients (r) showed very high values for each intensity in the 3 different days (range r = 0.73-0.83) and practically perfect correlation for all loads (range r = 0.97-0.98). The simple linear regression analysis between Vp and Vr revealed values ranging from R² = 0.53 to R² = 0.69 in the 3 intensities and values ranging from R² = 0.95 to R² = 0.97 considering all loads. The reliability (ICC_2.1, SEM) of Vp was tested for light (0.85, 0.03), medium (0.90, 0.03) and heavy loads (0.86, 0.03) and for all loads (0.99, 0.11). The delta score (ds = Vp - Vr) showed higher accuracy of the PV at heavy loads.

CONCLUSIONS

these results show that the PV Squat Scale is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to accurately quantify exercise intensity.

Perception of Velocity during Free-Weight Exercises: Difference between Back Squat and Bench Press

The perception of bar velocity (PV) is a subjective parameter useful in estimating velocity during resistance training. The aim of this study was to investigate if the PV can be improved through specific training sessions, if it differs between the back squat (SQ) and bench press (BP), and if there are differences in perception accuracy in the different intensity zones. Resistance-trained participants were randomly divided in an experimental (EG, n = 16) or a control group (CG, n = 14). After a familiarization trial, both groups were tested before and after 5 weeks of training. The PV was assessed with five blinded loads covering different intensity domains. During the training period, only the EG group received velocity feedback for each repetition. Prior to training, both groups showed a greater PV accuracy in the SQ than in the BP. Post training, the EG showed a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in the delta score (the difference between the real and perceived velocity) for both exercises, while no significant differences were observed in the CG. Prior to training, the perceived velocity was more accurate at higher loads for both exercises, while no difference between loads was observed after training (EG). The results of this study demonstrate that the PV improves with specific training and that differences in the accuracy between loads and exercise modes seen prior to training are leveled off after training.

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.

The Influence of Functional Flywheel Resistance Training on Movement Variability and Movement Velocity in Elite Rugby Players

The aim of this study was to identify the changes in movement variability and movement velocity during a six-week training period using a resistance horizontal forward-backward task without (NOBALL) or with (BALL) the constraint of catching and throwing a rugby ball in the forward phase. Eleven elite male rugby union players (mean ± SD: age 25.5 ± 2.0 years, height 1.83 ± 0.06 m, body mass 95 ± 18 kg, rugby practice 14 ± 3 years) performed eight repetitions of NOBALL and BALL conditions once a week in a rotational flywheel device. Velocity was recorded by an attached rotary encoder while acceleration data were used to calculate sample entropy (SampEn), multiscale entropy, and the complexity index. SampEn showed no significant decrease for NOBALL (ES = -0.64 ± 1.02) and significant decrease for BALL (ES = -1.71 ± 1.16; p < 0.007) conditions. Additionally, movement velocity showed a significant increase for NOBALL (ES = 1.02 ± 1.05; p < 0.047) and significant increase for BALL (ES = 1.25 ± 1.08; p < 0.025) between weeks 1 and 6. The complexity index showed higher levels of complexity in the BALL condition, specifically in the first three weeks. Movement velocity and complex dynamics were adapted to the constraints of the task after a four-week training period. Entropy measures seem a promising processing signal technique to identify when these exercise tasks should be changed.

Perception of changes in bar velocity in resistance training: Accuracy levels within and between exercises

Velocity-based training is a method used to monitor resistance-training programs based on repetition velocities measured with tracking devices. Since velocity measuring devices can be expensive and impractical, trainee's perception of changes in velocity (PCV) may be used as a possible substitute. Here, 20 resistance-trained males first completed 1 Repetition Maximum (RM) tests in the bench-press and squat. Then, in three counterbalanced sessions, participants completed four sets of eight repetitions in both exercises using 60%1RM (two-sessions) or 70%1RM. Starting from the second repetition, participants reported their PCV of each repetition as a percentage of the first repetition. Accuracy of PCV was calculated as the difference between PCV and actual changes in velocity measured with a linear-encoder. Three key findings emerged. First, the absolute error in the bench-press and squat was ≈5.8 percentage-points in the second repetition, and increased to 13.2 and 16.7 percentage-points, respectively, by the eighth repetition. Second, participants reduced the absolute error in the second 60%1RM session compared to the first by ≈1.7 in both exercises (p ≤ 0.007). Third, participants were 4.2 times more likely to underestimate changes velocity in the squat compared to the bench-press. The gradual increments in the absolute error suggest that PCV may be better suited for sets of fewer repetitions (e.g., 4-5) and wider velocity-loss threshold ranges (e.g., 5-10%). The reduced absolute error in the second 60%1RM session suggests that PCV accuracy can be improved with practice. The systematic underestimation error in the squat suggests that a correction factor may increase PCV accuracy in this exercise.

Load-Velocity Relationships of the Back vs. Front Squat Exercises in Resistance-Trained Men

Spitz, RW, Gonzalez, AM, Ghigiarelli, JJ, Sell, KM, and Mangine, GT. Load-velocity relationships of the back vs. front squat exercises in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 33(2): 301-306, 2019-The purpose of this investigation was to describe and compare changes in barbell velocity in relation to relative load increases during the back squat (BS) and front squat (FS) exercises. Eleven National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I baseball position players (19.4 ± 1.0 years; 182.4 ± 6.5 cm; and 87.2 ± 7.4 kg) performed trials at maximum speed with loads of 30, 50, 70, and 90% of their predetermined 1 repetition maximum (1RM) for both BS and FS. Peak and mean velocity was recorded during each repetition using an accelerometer. Differences between exercises and relative loading were assessed by separate 2 × 4 (condition × relative load) repeated-measures analysis of variance for mean and peak velocity. In addition, the load-velocity relationship across submaximal loadings in BS and FS were further assessed by calculating their respective slopes and comparing slopes through a paired-samples t-test. No significant condition × relative load interactions were noted for mean velocity (p = 0.072) or peak velocity (p = 0.203). Likewise, no significant differences in the slope for BS and FS were noted for mean velocity (p = 0.057) or peak velocity (p = 0.196). However, significant main effects for relative load were noted for both mean and peak velocity (p < 0.001), whereby mean and peak velocity were progressively reduced across all relative loads (i.e., 30, 50, 70, and 90% 1RM) for both the BS and FS. Our results demonstrate that the load-velocity relationships of the BS and FS exercises seem to be similar; therefore, similar approaches may be used with these squat variations when monitoring barbell velocity or implementing velocity-based strength training.

Rating of perceived exertion and velocity loss as variables for controlling the level of effort in the bench press exercise

There is a growing interest in the analysis of different methods for monitor fatigue during resistance training sessions. This study aimed to (1) analyse the relationships between the percentage of performed repetitions with respect to the maximum possible number (%REP), RPE and magnitude of velocity loss (VL), and (2) examine whether a multiple regression analysis with the RPE and VL as predictor variables could improve the goodness of fit to predict %REP in the bench press exercise performed in a Smith machine. Seven men performed a repetition maximum test, on 3 separate testing sessions, against 3 different absolute loads based on a target mean velocity (MV) according to an individual load-velocity profile (≈1.00, ≈0.70, and ≈0.50 m/s). MV, VL, %REP and RPE were collected and used for analysis. Based upon quadratic polynomial regression analysis strong relationships were reported between the RPE and %REP (r² = 0.89 and SEE = 9.85%) and between the VL and %REP (r² = 0.91 and SEE = 9.85%). Multiple regression analysis with the RPE and VL as predictor variables improved the goodness of fit (r² = 0.94 and SEE = 7.18%) of the model to predict %REP. These results suggest that both RPE and VL are useful variables to accurately estimate %REP in the bench press exercise.