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

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

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.

Reliability and validity of different methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise

This study examined the reliability and validity of three methods of estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise. Twenty-six men (22 rowers and four weightlifters) performed an incremental loading test until reaching their 1RM, followed by a set of repetitions-to-failure. Eighteen participants were re-tested to conduct the reliability analysis. The 1RM was estimated through the lifts-to-failure equations proposed by Lombardi and O'Connor, general load-velocity (L-V) relationships proposed by Sánchez-Medina and Loturco and the individual L-V relationships modelled using four (multiple-point method) or only two loads (two-point method). The direct method provided the highest reliability (coefficient of variation [CV] = 2.45% and intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.97), followed by the Lombardi's equation (CV = 3.44% and ICC = 0.94), and no meaningful differences were observed between the remaining methods (CV range = 4.95-6.89% and ICC range = 0.81-0.91). The lifts-to-failure equations overestimated the 1RM (3.43-4.08%), the general L-V relationship proposed by Sánchez-Medina underestimated the 1RM (-3.77%), and no significant differences were observed for the remaining prediction methods (-0.40-0.86%). The individual L-V relationship could be recommended as the most accurate method for predicting the 1RM during the free-weight prone bench pull exercise.

Technical Note on Using the Movement Velocity to Estimate the Relative Load in Resistance Exercises - Letter to the Editor

The studies by Sanchez-Medina et al. ( Sports Medicine International Open , 1 (02), E80-E88. 2017) and Gonzalez-Badillo and Sanchez-Medina ( Int J Sports Med, 31 , 347-52. 2010) attempted to provide a good estimation of relative load from movement velocity measured in bench press and full squat. However, both aforementioned studies contain methodological issues concerning the predicted equations used to address load-velocity relationship that coaches should be aware of.

Reliability Analysis of Traditional and Ballistic Bench Press Exercises at Different Loads

The purpose of this study was to determine test-retest reliability for peak barbell velocity (Vpeak) during the bench press (BP) and bench press throw (BPT) exercises for loads corresponding to 20-70% of one-repetition maximum (1RM). Thirty physically active collegiate men conducted four evaluations after a preliminary BP 1RM determination (1RM·bw-1 = 1.02 ± 0.16 kg·kg-1). In counterbalanced order, participants performed two sessions of the BP in one week and two sessions of the BPT in another week. Recovery time between sessions within the same week was 48 hours and recovery time between sessions of different weeks was 120 hours. On each day of evaluation the individual load-velocity relationship at each tenth percentile (20-70% of 1RM) in a Smith machine for the BP or BPT was determined. Participants performed three attempts per load, but only the best repetition (highest Vpeak), registered by a linear position transducer, was analysed. The BPT resulted in a significantly lower coefficient of variation (CV) for the whole load-velocity relationship, compared to the BP (2.48% vs. 3.22%; p = 0.040). Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from r = 0.94-0.85 for the BPT and r = 0.91-0.71 for the BP (p < 0.001). The reduction in the biological within-subject variation in BPT exercise could be promoted by the braking phase that obligatorily occurs during a BP executed with light or moderate loads. Therefore, we recommend the BPT exercise for a most accurate assessment of upper-body velocity.