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

Load-Velocity Relationship in the Bulgarian Split-Squat Exercise

ABSTRACT

Rabal-Pelay, J, Gutiérrez, H, Bascuas, P-J, Pareja-Blanco, F, and Marco-Contreras, LA. Load-velocity relationship in the Bulgarian split-squat exercise. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2024-The objective of the current research was to analyze the load-velocity relationship in the Bulgarian split-squat (BSS) exercise and to compare these relationships between the dominant and nondominant legs. Twenty-one strength-trained men (age: 27.3 ± 7.3 years) performed a progressive loading test in the BSS exercise using a Smith machine for each leg. The protocol began with a load of 30 kg, incrementally adding 10 kg until the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) fell below 0.4 m·s-1. At that point, 5 kg increments were employed, with a final addition of 2.5 kg for the last estimated attempt one-repetition maximum (1RM). A total of 324 lifts were analyzed. Subjects exhibited a relative strength ratio of 1.23 ± 0.10, a 1RM of 91.3 ± 14.2 kg, and a mean range of motion of 44.7 ± 3.7 cm. Polynomial regression analysis showed a robust relationship with an R2 value of 0.945 (ρ ≤ 0.001) between the relative load (%1RM) and MPV. Despite the differences in 1RM between the dominant and nondominant legs, there were no significant differences in MPV at the %1RM between both legs. These findings suggest that training intensity can be prescribed via the MPV during the BSS exercise. Moreover, the load-velocity relationship is stable between limbs despite the potential differences in absolute strength levels.

Changes in strength-related outcomes following velocity-monitored resistance training with 10 % and 20 % velocity loss in older adults

We compared the effects of velocity-monitored resistance training with an intra-set velocity loss (i.e., the decrement in repetition velocity over the set) of 10 % vs. 20 % on strength-related outcomes in older adults. We randomly assigned eighteen older adults to a velocity loss group of 10 % (n = 10; 78 ± 12 years) or 20 % (n = 8; 73 ± 10 years) to perform a 10-week training program. The primary outcomes were the one-repetition maximum (1RM) and the average mean velocity against absolute loads associated with loads <60 % 1RM (MVlow) and ≥ 60 % 1RM (MVhigh) in the leg and chest press exercises, assessed at pre-, mid- (week 5), and post-test. Secondary outcomes included handgrip strength, 1-kg medicine ball throw distance, 10-m walking time, and five-repetition sit-to-stand time. No differences between groups were found in any outcome at any time (p > 0.05). Both groups improved the 1RM leg press from pre- to mid- and post-test and the MVlow and MVhigh from pre- to mid-test (p < 0.05). No group improved the 1RM chest press (p > 0.05), but both increased the MVlow from pre- to mid-test (p < 0.05). Furthermore, both groups improved the sit-to-stand time, while only the 20 % velocity loss group significantly improved handgrip strength and 10-m walking time (p < 0.05). The results showed that both velocity losses improved leg press strength and velocity, chest press velocity, and sit-to-stand time in older adults, although a 10 % velocity loss was more efficient as it required less volume (i.e., total repetitions) than 20 %. Nevertheless, the latter seems required to optimize handgrip strength and 10-m walking time in older people.

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 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.

Reliability, Validity, and Comparison of Barbell Velocity Measurement Devices during the Jump Shrug and Hang High Pull

This study examined the reliability, potential bias, and practical differences between the GymAware Powertool (GA), Tendo Power Analyzer (TENDO), and Push Band 2.0 (PUSH) during the jump shrug (JS) and hang high pull (HHP) performed across a spectrum of loads. Fifteen resistance-trained men performed JS and HHP repetitions with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of their 1RM hang power clean, and mean (MBV) and peak barbell velocity (PBV) were determined by each velocity measurement device. Least-products regression and Bland-Altman plots were used to examine instances of proportional, fixed, and systematic bias between the TENDO and PUSH compared to the GA. Hedge's g effect sizes were also calculated to determine any meaningful differences between devices. The GA and TENDO displayed excellent reliability and acceptable variability during the JS and HHP while the PUSH showed instances of poor-moderate reliability and unacceptable variability at various loads. While the TENDO and PUSH showed instances of various bias, the TENDO device demonstrated greater validity when compared to the GA. Trivial-small differences were shown between the GA and TENDO during the JS and HHP exercises while trivial-moderate differences existed between GA and PUSH during the JS. However, despite trivial-small effects between the GA and PUSH devices at 20 and 40% 1RM during the HHP, practically meaningful differences existed at 60, 80, and 100%, indicating that the PUSH velocity outputs were not accurate. The TENDO appears to be more reliable and valid than the PUSH when measuring MBV and PBV during the JS and HHP.

Influence of Cluster Sets on Mechanical and Perceptual Variables in Adolescent Athletes

Cluster sets (CS) are effective in maintaining performance and reducing perceived effort compared to traditional sets (TRD). However, little is known about these effects on adolescent athletes. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of CS on the performance of mechanical and perceptual variables in young athletes. Eleven subjects [4 boys (age = 15.5 ± 0.8 years; body mass = 54.3 ± 7.0 kg; body height = 1.67 ± 0.04 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.62 ± 0.19 kg; years from peak height velocity [PHV]: 0.94 ± 0.50) and 7 girls (age = 17.2 ± 1.4 years; body mass = 54.7 ± 6.3 kg; body height = 1.63 ± 0.08 m; Back Squat 1RM/body mass: 1.22 ± 0.16 kg; years from PHV: 3.33 ± 1.00)] participated in a randomized crossover design with one traditional (TRD: 3 × 8, no intra-set and 225 s interest rest) and two clusters (CS1: 3 × 2 × 4, one 30 s intra-set and 180 s inter-set rest; and CS2: 3 × 4 × 2, three 30 s intra-set and 90 s inter-set rest) protocols. The subjects were assessed for a Back Squat 1RM for the first meet, then performed the three protocols on three different days, with at least 48 h between them. During experimental sessions, a back squat exercise was performed, and mean propulsive velocity (MPV), power (MPP), and force (MPF) were collected to analyze performance between protocols, together with measures of countermovement jump (CMJ) and perceptual responses through Rating of Perceived Exertion for each set (RPE-Set) and the overall session (S-RPE), and Muscle Soreness (DOMS). The results showed that velocity and power decline (MVD and MPD) were favorable for CS2 (MVD: -5.61 ± 14.84%; MPD: -5.63 ± 14.91%) against TRD (MVD: -21.10 ± 11.88%; MPD: -20.98 ± 11.85%) (p < 0.01) and CS1 (MVD: -21.44 ± 12.13%; MPD: -21.50 ± 12.20%) (p < 0.05). For RPE-Set, the scores were smaller for CS2 (RPE8: 3.23 ± 0.61; RPE16: 4.32 ± 1.42; RPE24: 4.46 ± 1.51) compared to TRD (RPE8: 4.73 ± 1.33; RPE16: 5.46 ± 1.62; RPE24: 6.23 ± 1.97) (p = 0.008), as well as for Session RPE (CS2: 4.32 ± 1.59; TRD: 5.68 ± 1.75) (p = 0.015). There were no changes for jump height (CMJ: p = 0.985), and the difference between time points in CMJ (ΔCMJ: p = 0.213) and muscle soreness (DOMS: p = 0.437) were identified. Our findings suggest that using CS with a greater number of intra-set rests is more efficient even with the total rest interval equalized, presenting lower decreases in mechanical performance and lower perceptual effort responses.

Microdosing Sprint Distribution as an Alternative to Achieve Better Sprint Performance in Field Hockey Players

Introduction: The implementation of optimal sprint training volume is a relevant component of team sport performance. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of two different configurations of within-season training load distribution on sprint performance over 6 weeks. Methods: Twenty male professional FH players participated in the study. Players were conveniently assigned to two groups: the experimental group (MG; n = 11; applying the microdosing training methodology) and the control group (TG; n = 9; traditional training, with players being selected by the national team). Sprint performance was evaluated through 20 m sprint time (T20) m and horizontal force−velocity profile (HFVP) tests before (Pre) and after (Post) intervention. Both measurements were separated by a period of 6 weeks. The specific sprint training program was performed for each group (for vs. two weekly sessions for MG and TG, respectively) attempting to influence the full spectrum of the F-V relationship. Results: Conditional demands analysis (matches and training sessions) showed no significant differences between the groups during the intervention period (p > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were found at Pre or Post for any sprint-related performance (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, intra-group analysis revealed significant differences in F0, Pmax, RFmean at 10 m and every achieved time for distances ranging from 5 to 25 m for MG (p < 0.05). Such changes in mechanical capabilities and sprint performance were characterized by an increase in stride length and a decrease in stride frequency during the maximal velocity phase (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Implementing strategies such as microdosed training load distribution appears to be an effective and efficient alternative for sprint training in team sports such as hockey.

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

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

The 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.

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.

A systematic review of resistance training methodologies for the development of lower body concentric mean power, peak power, and mean propulsive power in team-sport athletes

This study aimed to systematically review training methods prescribed to develop lower-body power, determine their effectiveness for the development of lower-body mechanical power and their implementation in an annual training cycle amongst team-sport athletes. The absolute and relative outcome values of concentric mean power, peak power and mean propulsive power were extracted from 19 studies. Outcomes were assessed using baseline to post intervention percent change, effect sizes, and the level of evidence concerning the method's effectiveness. A thorough analysis of the literature indicated that, based on the high level of evidence, traditional (e.g., strength training alone) and combination training (e.g., complex and contrast) methods should be considered. Further, optimal load and velocity-based training can be implemented if coaches have access to the appropriate equipment to monitor movement velocity and mechanical power in every session. This is of particular importance in periods of the season where high volumes of technical-tactical training and congested fixture periods are present. Also, flywheel, eccentric overload and weightlifting methods have been shown to be effective although the level of evidence is low. Future research should expand on current training practices whilst adequately reporting actual training loads from sport-specific training and games alongside strength-power training protocols.