Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the effect on strength gains of two isoinertial resistance training (RT) programmes that only differed in actual concentric velocity: maximal (MaxV) vs. half-maximal (HalfV) velocity. Twenty participants were assigned to a MaxV (n = 9) or HalfV (n = 11) group and trained 3 times per week during 6 weeks using the bench press (BP). Repetition velocity was controlled using a linear velocity transducer. A complementary study (n = 10) aimed to analyse whether the acute metabolic (blood lactate and ammonia) and mechanical response (velocity loss) was different between the MaxV and HalfV protocols used. Both groups improved strength performance from pre- to post-training, but MaxV resulted in significantly greater gains than HalfV in all variables analysed: one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength (18.2 vs. 9.7%), velocity developed against all (20.8 vs. 10.0%), light (11.5 vs. 4.5%) and heavy (36.2 vs. 17.3%) loads common to pre- and post-tests. Light and heavy loads were identified with those moved faster or slower than 0.80 m·s(-1) (∼60% 1RM in BP). Lactate tended to be significantly higher for MaxV vs. HalfV, with no differences observed for ammonia which was within resting values. Both groups obtained the greatest improvements at the training velocities (≤0.80 m·s(-1)). Movement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect. BP strength gains can be maximised when repetitions are performed at maximal intended velocity.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Universidad Pablo de Olavide]
On: 05 November 2014, At: 02:28
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Sport Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20
Maximal intended velocity training induces greater
gains in bench press performance than deliberately
slower half-velocity training
Juan José González-Badilloa, David Rodríguez-Rosella, Luis Sánchez-Medinab, Esteban M.
Gorostiagab & Fernando Pareja-Blancoa
a Faculty of Sport, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain
b Studies, Research and Sports Medicine Centre, Pamplona, Spain
Published online: 15 Apr 2014.
To cite this article: Juan José González-Badillo, David Rodríguez-Rosell, Luis Sánchez-Medina, Esteban M.
Gorostiaga & Fernando Pareja-Blanco (2014) Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press
performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training, European Journal of Sport Science, 14:8, 772-781, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2014.905987
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.905987
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench press
performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training
JUAN JOSÉ GONZÁLEZ-BADILLO
1
, DAVID RODRÍGUEZ-ROSELL
1
,
LUIS SÁNCHEZ-MEDINA
2
, ESTEBAN M. GOROSTIAGA
2
,
& FERNANDO PAREJA-BLANCO
1
1
Faculty of Sport, Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain,
2
Studies, Research and Sports Medicine Centre, Pamplona,
Spain
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect on strength gains of two isoinertial resistance training (RT) programmes
that only differed in actual concentric velocity: maximal (MaxV) vs. half-maximal (HalfV) velocity. Twenty participants were
assigned to a MaxV (n= 9) or HalfV (n= 11) group and trained 3 times per week during 6 weeks using the bench press
(BP). Repetition velocity was controlled using a linear velocity transducer. A complementary study (n= 10) aimed to
analyse whether the acute metabolic (blood lactate and ammonia) and mechanical response (velocity loss) was different
between the MaxV and HalfV protocols used. Both groups improved strength performance from pre- to post-training, but
MaxV resulted in significantly greater gains than HalfV in all variables analysed: one-repetition maximum (1RM) strength
(18.2 vs. 9.7%), velocity developed against all (20.8 vs. 10.0%), light (11.5 vs. 4.5%) and heavy (36.2 vs. 17.3%) loads
common to pre- and post-tests. Light and heavy loads were identified with those moved faster or slower than 0.80 m·s
−1
(∼60% 1RM in BP). Lactate tended to be significantly higher for MaxV vs. HalfV, with no differences observed for
ammonia which was within resting values. Both groups obtained the greatest improvements at the training velocities (≤0.80
m·s
−1
). Movement velocity can be considered a fundamental component of RT intensity, since, for a given %1RM, the
velocity at which loads are lifted largely determines the resulting training effect. BP strength gains can be maximised when
repetitions are performed at maximal intended velocity.
Keywords: Resistance, strength, fatigue, metabolism
Introduction
The kinematics and kinetics associated with resist-
ance training (RT) and their interaction with other
hormonal and metabolic factors appear to be key
stimuli for neuromuscular adaptations to occur
(Crewther, Cronin, & Keogh, 2005). Manipula-
tion of the acute programme variables (e.g. load,
number of sets and repetitions, exercise type
and order, etc.) shapes the magnitude and type
of physiological responses and, ultimately, the
adaptations to RT (Spiering et al., 2008;Toigo&
Boutellier, 2006). Movement velocity, which is
dependent on both the magnitude of the load to
overcome and the voluntary intent of the athlete to
move that load, is another variable that may
influence the adaptations consequent to RT but
whose role has not been sufficiently investigated
(Pereira & Gomes, 2003; Sánchez-Medina &
González-Badillo, 2011).
Most of the studies examining the effect of
movement velocity on neuromuscular performance
were conducted on isokinetic equipment (Behm &
Sale, 1993; Kanehisa & Miyashita, 1983), but
surprisingly, only a few have used isoinertial exer-
cise as the training modality. Isoinertial (constant
external load) weight training is the most commonly
available type of RT and generally considered
the most specific to enhance sports performance
(Ingebrigtsen, Holtermann, & Roeleveld, 2009;
Pereira & Gomes, 2003). To our knowledge, Young
and Bilby (1993) were the first to compare the
effect of intentionally reducing repetition velocity
Correspondence: Fernando Pareja-Blanco, Faculty of Sport, Pablo de Olavide University, Ctra. de Utrera km 1, 41013 Seville, Spain.
E-mail: fparbla@gmail.com
European Journal of Sport Science, 2014
Vol. 14, No. 8, 772–781, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2014.905987
© 2014 European College of Sport Science
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

vs. lifting the load at maximal velocity on strength
performance, without finding a clear difference
between the “fast”and “slow”training groups.
A common methodological problem to many of
the isoinertial studies that have analysed the effect
of movement velocity on strength gains has been not
equating volume and loading magnitude between
the different training interventions (Fielding et al.,
2002;Ingebrigtsenetal.,2009;Jones,Hunter,
Fleisig, Escamilla, & Lemak, 1999; Morrissey,
Harman, Frykman, & Han, 1998; Munn, Herbert,
Hancock, & Gandevia, 2005; Pereira & Gomes,
2007;Young&Bilby,1993). Another aspect worth
noticing is that most isoinertial research comparing
the effects of fast vs. slow velocity training on
strength has used exercise sets performed to or
very close to muscle failure (Fielding et al., 2002;
Ingebrigtsen et al., 2009; Jones et al., 1999;
Morrissey et al., 1998; Munn et al., 2005; Pereira
&Gomes,2007;Young&Bilby,1993), which
prevents following the imposed lifting cadence in
the last repetitions of each set and causes these to
be performed at a much slower than intended
velocity, therefore tending to equalise the overall
training velocities between the fast and slow groups.
Furthermore, a careful examination of the cited
studies (Fielding et al., 2002;Ingebrigtsenetal.,
2009; Jones et al., 1999; Morrissey et al., 1998;
Munn et al., 2005; Pereira & Gomes, 2007;Young&
Bilby, 1993) reveals that actual repetition velocities
during training were not measured or rigorously
controlled.
Several studies have used blood metabolites as
indicators of neuromuscular fatigue during RT
(Gorostiaga et al., 2010; Izquierdo et al., 2006;
Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011)or
have analysed the acute effect of movement velocity
on blood lactate concentration (Buitrago, Wirtz,
Yue, Kleinöder, & Mester, 2012; Gentil, Oliveira, &
Bottaro, 2006; Hunter, Seelhorst, & Snyder, 2003;
Mazzetti, Douglass, Yocum, & Harber, 2007). To
our knowledge, only Mazzetti et al. (2007) equated
exercise volume and loading magnitude between at
least two of the three protocols examined, so that the
observed differences could be mainly attributed to
movement velocity. Elevated blood ammonia during
RT may indicate an imbalance between the rate of
ATP utilisation and resynthesis within the contracting
muscle and has been suggested to play a role in fatigue
(Gorostiaga et al., 2012; Izquierdo et al., 2009;
Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011); how-
ever, the acute effect of movement velocity on this
metabolite has not been clearly established.
The present investigation was designed in an
attempt to clarify the influence of repetition velocity
on the gains in strength consequent to isoinertial
RT. Two separate studies were undertaken. Study I
compared the effect of two distinct RT interventions
on strength gains using movement velocity as the
independent variable. Two groups that only differed
in actual repetition velocity (and consequently in
time under tension, TUT): maximal intended velo-
city (MaxV) vs. half-maximal velocity (HalfV)
trained three times per week for 6 weeks using the
bench press (BP) exercise, while the remaining
programme variables (number of sets and repeti-
tions, inter-set rests and loading magnitude) were
kept identical. Study II was a complementary study
that aimed to analyse whether the acute metabolic
(blood lactate and ammonia) and mechanical
response (velocity loss) was different between the
type of MaxV and HalfV protocols previously used
in Study I.
Methods
Participants
Twenty-four men volunteered to participate in Study I.
Of these participants, only 20 successfully completed
the entire study (mean ± s: age 21.9 ± 2.9 years,
height 1.77 ± 0.08 m, body mass 70.9 ± 8.0 kg). Ten
additional participants (25.3 ± 3.4 years, 1.77 ± 0.08
m, body mass 75.2 ± 8.7 kg) took part in Study II.
Participants were physically active sport science
students with 2–4 years of recreational RT experi-
ence in the BP exercise. After being informed about
the purpose, procedures and potential risks of the
investigation, participants gave their voluntary writ-
ten consent. No physical limitations or musculoske-
letal injuries that could affect training were found
after a medical examination. The investigation was
conducted in accordance with the Declaration of
Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of
Pablo de Olavide University.
Study I
Four preliminary familiarisation sessions were un-
dertaken with the purpose of emphasising proper
execution technique and getting participants accus-
tomed to both types of maximal velocity and HalfV
lifts. Several practice sets at different target velocities
were performed while receiving immediate velocity
feedback. Based upon pre-test 1RM strength per-
formance, participants were allocated to one of the
two groups following an ABBA counterbalancing
sequence: MaxV (n= 9) or HalfV (n= 11). The only
difference in the RT programme between groups
was the actual velocity at which loads were lifted:
maximal intended concentric velocity for MaxV vs.
an intentional half-maximal concentric velocity for
HalfV. Both groups trained three times per week, on
Movement velocity in resistance training 773
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

non-consecutive days, for a period of 6 weeks using
only the BP exercise (Figure 1a).
RT programme. Descriptive characteristics are pre-
sented in Table I. All testing and training sessions
were performed using a Smith machine (Peroga
Fitness, Murcia, Spain). Magnitude of training loads
(percent of one-repetition maximum, %1RM), num-
ber of sets and repetitions and inter-set recoveries
(3 min) were kept identical for both groups in each
training session. Relative loads for each session were
determined from the load–velocity relationship for
the BP, since it has been shown that there exists
a very close relationship between %1RM and
mean velocity in this exercise (González-Badillo &
Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Sánchez-Medina, González-
Badillo, Pérez, & Pallarés, 2014). Thus, a target
mean propulsive velocity (MPV) to be attained in the
first (usually the fastest) repetition of the first set of
each session was used as an estimation of%1RM, as
follows: 0.79 m·s
−1
(∼60%RM), 0.70 m·s
−1
(∼65%
RM), 0.62 m·s
−1
(∼70%RM), 0.55 m·s
−1
(∼75%
RM), 0.47 m·s
−1
(∼80%RM). Both groups per-
formed a maximal intended concentric velocity
repetition (reference rep) at the end of their respect-
ive warm-up to ensure that the absolute load (kg) to
be used precisely corresponded (± 0.03 m·s
−1
)tothe
velocity associated with the %1RM intended for that
session. If this was not the case, the load was
individually adjusted until it matched the target
MPV. The MaxV group performed all repetitions
at maximal intended concentric velocity, whereas
participants in the HalfV group were required to
intentionally reduce concentric velocity so that it
corresponded to half the target MPV established for
each training session. This was accomplished by
using a linear velocity transducer. A computer screen
placed in front of the participants allowed them to
Figure 1. Schematic timeline of study design: (a) Study I, 6 week MaxV vs. HalfV training interventions (n= 20); (b) Study II, descriptive
study of the acute response to six different RT protocols (n= 10); (c) Scheme of each RT protocol in Study II. Studies Iand II were
performed 3 weeks apart using a different sample of participants.
774 J. J. González-Badillo et al.
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

Table I. Study I. Descriptive characteristics of the BP training programme performed by the MaxV and HalfV groups
Scheduled Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4 Wk 5 Wk 6
Sets × Reps 3 × 6 3 × 5 3 × 5 4 × 3 4 × 3 3 × 2
3×63×53×54×34×34×2
3×83×63×63×43×43×3
Target MPV (m·s
−1
) 0.79 0.70 0.62 0.55 0.55 0.47
(60% 1RM) (65% 1RM) (70% 1RM) (75% 1RM) (75% 1RM) (80% 1RM)
Actually performed Overall
Reference rep’s MPV (m·s
−1
)
MaxV 0.79 ± 0.07 0.70 ± 0.04 0.64 ± 0.02 0.57 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.03 0.49 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.01
(60 ± 4% 1RM) (65 ± 3% 1RM) (69 ± 1% 1RM) (73 ± 3% 1RM) (73 ± 2% 1RM) (78 ± 2% 1RM) (69 ± 1% 1RM)
HalfV 0.78 ± 0.06 0.71 ± 0.04 0.65 ± 0.02 0.56 ± 0.03 0.55 ± 0.03 0.49 ± 0.03 0.62 ± 0.02
(60 ± 3% 1RM) (64 ± 2% 1RM) (68 ± 1% 1RM) (74 ± 2% 1RM) (74 ± 2% 1RM) (78 ± 2% 1RM) (70 ± 1% 1RM)
MPV all reps (m·s
−1
)
MaxV 0.71 ± 0.07 0.62 ± 0.06 0.55 ± 0.07 0.51 ± 0.05 0.50 ± 0.05 0.44 ± 0.04 0.58 ± 0.06*
HalfV 0.40 ± 0.04 0.35 ± 0.03 0.31 ± 0.02 0.27 ± 0.02 0.27 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.01 0.32 ± 0.03
TUT all reps (s)
MaxV 41.4 ± 3.7 37.4 ± 7.9 44.9 ± 4.7 36.4 ± 2.5 35.8 ± 6.4 26.9 ± 3.1 222.8 ± 21.4*
HalfV 68.5 ± 3.9 59.1 ± 7.7 68.3 ± 9.5 60.9 ± 3.8 61.1 ± 3.5 42.8 ± 2.1 360.9 ± 19.2
Data are mean ± SD.
MaxV, maximal concentric velocity (n= 9); HalfV, half-maximal concentric velocity (n= 11); TUT, time under tension (concentric only); MPV: mean propulsive velocity; reps, repetitions; Wk, week;
subjects trained three sessions per wk; reference rep, MaxV repetition performed at the end of each session’s warm-up to ensure that the load (kg) to be used matched the velocity associated with the
intended %1RM.
Significant differences between MaxV and HalfV in mean overall values: *P< 0.001.
Movement velocity in resistance training 775
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

receive auditory and visual velocity feedback in real-
time. The eccentric phases of each repetition were
performed at a controlled velocity (∼0.30–0.50
m·s
−1
). Sessions took place under supervision of
the investigators, at the same time of day (±1 h) for
each participant and under constant environmental
conditions (20°C, 60% humidity). Participants were
required not to engage in any other type of strenuous
physical activity, training or sports competition for
the duration of the investigation.
Testing procedures. Strength performance was assessed
pre- and post-training using a progressive loading
test for the individual load–velocity relationship and
1RM strength determination in the BP exercise.
Unlike the eccentric phase that was performed at a
controlled velocity, participants were required to
always execute the concentric phase in an explosive
manner, at maximal velocity. Warm-up consisted of
5 min of upper-body joint mobilisation exercises,
followed by two sets of 8 and 6 repetitions (3-min
rests) with loads of 20 and 30 kg, respectively. The
exact same warm-up and progression of loads up to
the 1RM was repeated in the post-test for each
participant. After the warm-up, the initial load was
set at 20 kg and progressively increased by 10 kg
until the attained MPV was <0.5 m·s
−1
. Thereafter,
each load was individually adjusted with smaller
increments so that 1RM could be precisely deter-
mined. Three repetitions were executed for light
(≤50% 1RM), two for medium (50–80% 1RM) and
only one for the heaviest loads (>80% 1RM). Inter-
set rests ranged from 3 (light) to 5 min (heavy loads).
The best repetition at each load, according to the
criteria of fastest MPV, was considered for analysis.
In addition to 1RM strength, three other variables
derived from this test were analysed: (1) average
MPV attained against all absolute loads common to
pre- and post-tests (AV), calculated as the average
value of the fastest MPV attained at each absolute
load lifted in the pre- and post-tests (the same
progression of increasing absolute loads was used
in both tests); (2) average MPV attained against
absolute loads common to both tests that were lifted
faster than 0.8 m·s
−1
(AV >0.8); and (3) average
MPV attained against absolute loads common to
both tests that were lifted slower than 0.8 m·s
−1
(AV
<0.8). These outcome variables were chosen in an
attempt to analyse the extent to which the distinct
training interventions affected the different parts of
the load–velocity relationship (i.e. velocity developed
against light vs. heavy loads). A dynamic measure-
ment system (T-Force System, Ergotech, Murcia,
Spain), which consists of a linear velocity trans-
ducer interfaced to a computer by a 14-bit analogue-
to-digital data acquisition board and custom software,
provided auditory and visual velocity feedback in real-
time. Velocity was sampled at 1,000 Hz and
smoothed using a 4th order low-pass Butterworth filter
with no phase shift and a 10 Hz cut-off frequency.
Reliability has been reported elsewhere (Sánchez-
Medina & González-Badillo, 2011). Reported
velocities correspond to the mean velocity of the
propulsive phase of each repetition (Sánchez-Medina,
Pérez, & González-Badillo, 2010). TUT was calcu-
lated as the sum of the concentric duration of every
repetition.
Study II
Following familiarisation and a progressive test
identical to the one described for Study I, each
participant undertook six RT sessions separated by
48–72 h during a 3-week period, in the following
order: 3 × 8 rep with ∼60% 1RM at MaxV (0.79
m·s
−1
), 3 × 8 rep ∼60% 1RM at HalfV (0.40 m·s
−1
),
3×6rep∼70% 1RM at MaxV (0.62 m·s
−1
), 3 × 6
rep ∼70% 1RM at HalfV (0.31 m·s
−1
), 3 × 3 rep
∼80% 1RM at MaxV (0.47 m·s
−1
) and 3 × 3 rep
∼80% 1RM at HalfV (0.24 m·s
−1
), using 3-min
inter-set rests. Sessions were performed at the same
time of day (± 1 h), following a standardised warm-
up protocol and using the same absolute loads
and number of sets and reps for each participant
(Figure 1b).
Whole capillary blood samples were collected
from a hyperemised earlobe pre-exercise as well as
1-min post-exercise to analyse lactate and ammonia
concentrations. The Lactate Pro LT-1710 (Arkray,
Japan) portable analyser was used for lactate mea-
surements. Ammonia was measured using Pock-
etChem BA PA-4130 (Menarini, Italy). Analysers
were calibrated according to each manufacturer’s
specifications. In order to quantify the extent of
neuromuscular fatigue induced by each protocol, we
examined the pre–post exercise percent change in
velocity attained against the individually determined
load that elicited a ∼1.00 m·s
−1
MPV (V
1
) in a non-
fatigued state, as described elsewhere (Sánchez-
Medina & González-Badillo, 2011). At the end
of the warm-up, and again ∼70 s following each
exercise protocol (after blood sampling), each
participant performed three repetitions against
the V
1
load and the average value was registered
(Figure 1c).
Statistical analyses
Values are reported as mean ± standard deviation
(s). Statistical significance was established at the
P<0.05 level. Study I. Homogeneity of variance
across groups (MaxV vs. HalfV) was verified using
the Levene’s test. Independent-sample t-tests were
conducted to examine inter-group differences at
776 J. J. González-Badillo et al.
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

pre-training (Pre) whereas related-sample t-tests
were used to analyse intra-group changes between
pre- and post-training (Post). An ANCOVA taking
the Pre values as the covariate was performed to
analyse inter-group changes between Pre and Post.
Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated using Hedge’sg
(Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Study II. A 2 × 3 within–
within factorial ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post-hoc
comparisons was used to compare differences across
the three RT protocols analysed (3 × 8 ∼60% 1RM,
3×6∼70% 1RM and 3 × 3 ∼80% 1RM) and the
two velocity conditions (MaxV vs. HalfV). ESs were
calculated using Hedge’sgto compare the magnitude
of the differences between MaxV and HalfV in the
selected variables, as follows: g= (mean MaxV –
mean HalfV)/combined s. Statistical analyses were
performed using SPSS software version 18.0 (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL).
Results
Study I
No significant differences between the MaxV and
HalfV groups were found at Pre for any variable
analysed. MaxV trained at a significantly faster
average MPV than HalfV (0.58 ± 0.06 vs. 0.32 ±
0.03 m·s
−1
, respectively; P<0.001), whereas HalfV
spent significantly more concentric TUT than MaxV
(360.9 ± 19.2 vs. 222.8 ± 21.4 s, respectively;
P<0.001) (Table I). Compliance with the RT
programme was 95.8% of all sessions scheduled for
the MaxV group and 94.3% for the HalfV group.
Actual mean MPV and TUT values for each week
and overall training programme are reported in
Table I. Training resulted in a significant increase
in 1RM BP strength, average velocity developed
against all (AV), light (AV >0.8) and heavy (AV
<0.8) loads common to pre- and post-tests for both
groups. MaxV had significantly greater gains
(P<0.05) than HalfV for each of these variables
(Table II). Percent changes from pre- to post-
training and ES are reported in Table II.
Study II
Blood lactate was significantly higher for the MaxV
vs. HalfV condition following 3 × 8 with ∼60% 1RM
(P<0.01) and 3 × 6 with ∼70% 1RM (P<0.05),
whereas no significant differences between velocity
conditions were found for 3 × 3 with ∼80% 1RM
(Table III). No significant differences in blood
ammonia were observed between conditions for any
RT protocol (Table III). Pre–post change in the
velocity attained against the V
1
load was significantly
higher (P<0.01) for MaxV compared to HalfV for
3×8with∼60%RM. Although not statistically
significant, there was a tendency to greater velocity
loss against the V
1
load for 3 × 6 with ∼70%RM in
the MaxV condition. Mean values and ESs are
reported in Table III.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study
that has analysed the effect of two isoinertial RT
programmes equivalent in all training variables
except in movement velocity on strength gains, while
also describing the acute metabolic response to the
resistance exercise protocols employed. The main
finding of Study I was that performing repetitions at
maximal concentric velocity (MaxV) compared to
intentionally slower at half-velocity (HalfV) resulted
in significantly greater improvements in all strength
performance variables analysed, despite the fact that
MaxV spent less total TUT than HalfV (223 vs. 361
s, respectively; P<0.001). Study II showed that the
metabolic stress associated to the protocols used,
even though slightly superior for MaxV than HalfV,
could be considered moderate for both velocity
conditions. This suggested that metabolic factors did
not play a decisive role in the resulting adaptations,
Table II. Study I. Changes in BP strength performance variables from pre- to post-training for each group
MaxV HalfV
Pre Post
▵
(%) ES Pre Post
▵
(%) ES
1RM (kg) 75.8 ± 17.9 88.2 ± 15.1***†18.2 ± 11.9 0.75 73.9 ± 9.7 80.8 ± 11.2** 9.7 ± 7.9 0.66
AV (m·s
−1
) 0.76 ± 0.09 0.91 ± 0.08***‡20.8 ± 9.6 1.76 0.75 ± 0.07 0.83 ± 0.09*** 10.0 ± 7.2 0.99
AV > 0.8 (m·s
−1
) 1.03 ± 0.11 1.15 ± 0.10***‡11.5 ± 6.5 1.14 1.03 ± 0.08 1.08 ± 0.12*4.5 ± 6.1 0.49
AV < 0.8 (m·s
−1
) 0.55 ± 0.06 0.74 ± 0.06***†36.2 ± 20.0 3.17 0.55 ± 0.05 0.64 ± 0.08*** 17.3 ± 11.3 1.35
Data are mean ± SD.
ES, effect size;
▵
, pre–post change; MaxV, maximal concentric velocity (n= 9); HalfV, half-maximal concentric velocity (n= 11); 1RM:
one-repetition maximum BP strength; AV: average MPV attained against absolute loads common to pre- and post-test in the BP progressive
loading test; AV > 0.8: average MPV attained against absolute loads common to pre- and post-test that were lifted faster than 0.80 m·s
−1
;
AV < 0.8: average MPV attained against absolute loads common to pre- and post-test that were lifted slower than 0.80 m·s
−1
.
Intra-group significant differences from pre- to post-training: *P< 0.05, **P< 0.01, ***P< 0.001.
Inter-group significant differences at post-training: †P< 0.05, ‡P< 0.01.
Movement velocity in resistance training 777
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

and that strength gains were mainly due to the
distinct training velocities.
Following training, MaxV showed significantly
(P <0.05) greater improvements than HalfV for 1RM
(18.2 vs. 9.7%), AV (20.8 vs. 10.0%), AV >0.8 (11.5
vs. 4.5%) and AV <0.8 (36.2 vs. 17.3%), with all ESs
being superior for MaxV compared to HalfV training
(Table II). The fact that both groups obtained the
greatest improvement against AV <0.8, i.e. loads lifted
at mean concentric velocities <0.80 m·s
−1
which were
those used in training, is in agreement with the
velocity-specificity principle and supports previous
research (Kanehisa & Miyashita, 1983).
Previous isoinertial research comparing the effects
of “fast”vs. “slow”training velocities on strength
gains is not conclusive. Some studies found greater
strength gains when performing the repetitions at
fast velocities (Ingebrigtsen et al., 2009; Jones et al.,
1999; Munn et al., 2005), while others did not find
differences between the “fast”and “slow”training
groups (Fielding et al., 2002; Morrissey et al., 1998;
Pereira & Gomes, 2007; Young & Bilby, 1993). This
discrepancy is likely to be influenced by the meth-
odological inconsistencies affecting most of the
research on this topic already outlined in the intro-
duction. A plausible explanation to why several
studies did not find superior strength gains when
lifting loads faster may be that in those studies, repe-
titions were performed to muscle failure (Fielding
et al., 2002; Ingebrigtsen et al., 2009; Jones et al.,
1999; Morrissey et al., 1998; Munn et al., 2005;
Pereira & Gomes, 2007; Young & Bilby, 1993).
When such exhaustive efforts are performed, repeti-
tion velocity progressively and unintentionally
decreases (Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo,
2011) so that the velocities in the last repetitions of
each set become very similar between the “fast”and
“slow”groups, therefore tending to equalise the over-
all training velocity (Cronin, McNair, & Marshall,
2001; Jones et al., 1999). Furthermore, it has been
recently demonstrated that training with a low load
(30% 1RM) resulted in similar myofibrillar protein
synthesis rates as training with a heavy load (80%
1RM) provided exercise was continued to the point
of muscle failure (Mitchell et al., 2012). This
situation did not occur in the present investigation
where participants never exceeded half the max-
imum possible number of repetitions per set during
training and, thus, there were significant differences
between the overall mean repetition velocities
attained by the MaxV (0.58 m·s
−1
) and HalfV (0.32
m·s
−1
) groups.
A unique and important aspect of this study was
that actual repetition velocity was measured through-
out all training sessions. However, in most previous
research, training velocities were not quantified or
were merely identified with a certain lifting cadence
(Fielding et al., 2002; Ingebrigtsen et al., 2009;
Morrissey et al., 1998; Munn et al., 2005; Pereira
& Gomes, 2007; Young & Bilby, 1993). With regard
to time spent under tension, our results show that
concentric TUT was 62% greater for HalfV vs.
MaxV (Table I), but, apparently, this did not result
in any beneficial effect on muscle strength. Manip-
ulation of this particular variable and its effects on
strength gains are yet not fully understood (Crewther
et al., 2005; Schilling, Falvo, & Chiu, 2008). Our
findings seem to indicate that movement velocity is
of greater importance than TUT for enhancing
strength performance.
Table III. Study II. Metabolic and mechanical variables following each RT protocol in the two exercise conditions (n= 10)
MaxV HalfV P-value ES
Lactate (mmol·L
−1
)
Rest 1.3 ± 0.4 1.1 ± 0.3 NS 0.06
3 × 8 with 0.79 m·s
−1
load (∼60% 1RM) 4.7 ± 1.5 3.8 ± 1.2 < 0.01 0.66
3 × 6 with 0.62 m·s
−1
load (∼70% 1RM) 4.2 ± 1.0 3.4 ± 1.1 < 0.05 0.76
3 × 3 with 0.47 m·s
−1
load (∼80% 1RM) 2.5 ± 0.8*†2.4 ± 0.9*†NS 0.12
Ammonia (µmol·L
−1
)
Rest 33.0 ± 10.2 28.7 ± 9.3 NS 0.46
3 × 8 with 0.79 m·s
−1
load (∼60% 1RM) 47.8 ± 13.5 38.2 ± 19.0 NS 0.58
3 × 6 with 0.62 m·s
−1
load (∼70% 1RM) 38.2 ± 12.8 37.7 ± 10.8 NS 0.04
3 × 3 with 0.47 m·s
−1
load (∼80% 1RM) 15.8 ± 4.0*†18.1 ± 8.4*†NS −0.35
Pre–post change (%) in velocity against the V
1
load
3 × 8 with 0.79 m·s
−1
load (∼60% 1RM) 7.6 ± 6.7 1.4 ± 7.5 < 0.01 0.87
3 × 6 with 0.62 m·s
−1
load (∼70% 1RM) 7.1 ± 5.5 3.9 ± 5.1 NS 0.60
3 × 3 with 0.47 m·s
−1
load (∼80% 1RM) 0.5 ± 6.5*1.2 ± 3.5 NS 0.13
Data are mean ± SD.
MaxV, maximal concentric velocity; HalfV, half-maximal concentric velocity; V
1
load: individually determined load that elicited a ∼1.00
m·s
−1
MPV in pre-exercise, non-fatigued, conditions.
*Significant velocity × protocol interaction (P< 0.05) with 3 × 8 ∼60% 1RM.
†Significant velocity × protocol interaction (P< 0.05) with 3 × 6 ∼70% 1RM.
778 J. J. González-Badillo et al.
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

With regard to Study II, performing repetitions at
MaxV was accompanied by higher blood lactate
compared to HalfV (P<0.05–0.01), with the excep-
tion of the 3 × 3 with the 0.47 m·s
−1
load (∼80%
RM) protocol in which differences did not reach stat-
istical significance. The post-exercise lactate concen-
trations observed in Study II can be considered
moderate, even in the MaxV condition. Mazzetti
et al. (2007) analysed three RT protocols, with two
of them equated in loading and volume (4 × 8 rep
with 60%RM) and differing only in movement
velocity: 2 seconds duration vs. maximal concentric
actions. Mazzetti et al. (2007) reported higher lactate
levels for the slow protocol, which is in conflict with
the higher lactate values for MaxV vs. HalfV
observed in this study (Table III). However,
Mazzetti et al. (2007) also found higher energy
expenditure associated to maximal velocity com-
pared to slow muscle actions, which seems contra-
dictory. The higher lactate levels observed for MaxV
in Study II may be explained by the fact that when
loads are lifted at MaxV, higher force is applied in
each repetition (Hatfield et al., 2006; Schilling et al.,
2008) and a greater activation of fast-twitch muscle
fibres occurs (Desmedt & Godaux, 1978). It
thus seems reasonable to observe higher blood
lactate concentrations when type II fibres are
recruited, since they possess greater glycolytic power
(Colliander, Dudley, & Tesch, 1988). The greater
velocity loss against the V
1
load experienced in the
MaxV vs. HalfV condition (Table III) may also be
attributed to a greater activation of fast-twitch fibres
when each repetition is performed at maximal
velocity and a more pronounced fatigability of this
type of fibres (Colliander et al., 1988). Interestingly,
no differences were observed in ammonia levels
between both velocity conditions for any protocol
(Table III). The low ammonia values observed for
both MaxV and HalfV, not different from typical
resting levels, seem to indicate that the effort under-
taken during these protocols was unlikely to cause a
loss of muscle purines and, therefore, to compromise
recovery following these types of RT sessions
(Gorostiaga et al., 2012; Izquierdo et al., 2009;
Sánchez-Medina & González-Badillo, 2011).
Both the number of repetitions per set (from 8
down to 2) and loads (60–80% 1RM) used in this
study were moderate (Table I). This was a necessary
requisite so that subjects in the HalfV condition
could be able to complete all scheduled repetitions at
the intended slow velocity, whereas subjects in the
MaxV group could actually perform most of their
repetitions at high velocities, without being forced to
unintentionally and drastically reduce velocity due to
fatigue. Taken together, our findings show that the
type of RT programme performed by MaxV was
highly effective, because it provided considerable
strength gains, and yet, it was metabolically well
tolerated. These are important issues for condition-
ing in competitive sports where it is usually necessary
to maximise neuromuscular adaptations while trying
to avoid excessive fatigue that could interfere with
the development of other components of physical
fitness or negatively affect technical, tactical or
recovery aspects of training.
Our results are consistent with those obtained by
others (Behm & Sale, 1993; Jones et al., 1999) who
have stressed the importance of lifting loads at MaxV
as a key stimulus to achieve functional adaptations
directed towards improving neuromuscular perform-
ance. The superior strength gains obtained by the
MaxV group could be explained by a greater activa-
tion of agonist muscle groups (Sakamoto & Sinclair,
2012) with higher peak forces attained in each
repetition (Hatfield et al., 2006). Although speculat-
ive, a series of neurophysiological factors could have
also played a role in the greater strength gains
consequent to MaxV training: changes in myosin
heavy chain isoform composition (Paddon-Jones,
Leveritt, Lonergan, & Abernethy, 2001); increases
in tendon-aponeurosis stiffness (Bojsen-Moller,
Magnusson, Rasmussen, Kjaer, & Aagaard, 2005);
increased efferent neural drive with associated
changes in motor unit recruitment and firing fre-
quency (Aagaard, Simonsen, Andersen, Magnusson,
& Dyhre-Poulsen, 2002); as well as changes in
motoneuron excitability, reduction in presynaptic
inhibition and increases in the conduction level of
motoneurons (Aagaard et al., 2002).
In conclusion, the results of this study show that
movement velocity can be considered a fundamental
component of resistance exercise intensity, since, for
a given loading magnitude (%1RM), the velocity at
which loads are lifted largely determines the result-
ing training effect. A practical application of this
study is that strength gains in the BP can be
maximised when repetitions are performed at max-
imal intended concentric velocity. Thus, performing
every repetition at MaxV compared to intentionally
slower at HalfV resulted in considerably greater
gains in 1RM strength and velocity developed
against any given load. These results were achieved
without exceeding the half maximum possible num-
ber of repetitions per set and with a moderate degree
of metabolic stress. Velocity-specific adaptations
were observed, since both experimental groups
obtained the greatest improvements in BP perform-
ance at the velocities used in training. Finally, unlike
movement velocity, TUT was not a determinant
factor in the observed strength gains. Quantification
of the actual repetition velocities developed during
RT will provide us with a more complete and precise
understanding of the resistance exercise stimulus.
Movement velocity in resistance training 779
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

References
Aagaard, P., Simonsen, E. B., Andersen, J. L., Magnusson, P., &
Dyhre-Poulsen, P. (2002). Increased rate of force development
and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance
training. Journal of Applied Physiology,93, 1318–1326.
Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Intended rather than actual
movement velocity determines velocity-specific training response.
Journal of Applied Physiology,74, 359–368. doi:10.1063/1.354117
Bojsen-Moller, J., Magnusson, S. P., Rasmussen, L. R., Kjaer,
M., & Aagaard, P. (2005). Muscle performance during max-
imal isometric and dynamic contractions is influenced by the
stiffness of the tendinous structures. Journal of Applied Physi-
ology,99, 986–994. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01305.2004
Buitrago, S., Wirtz, N., Yue, Z., Kleinöder, H., & Mester, J.
(2012). Effects of load and training modes on physiological and
metabolic responses in resistance exercise. European Journal of
Applied Physiology,112, 2739–2748. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-
2249-9
Colliander, E. B., Dudley, G. A., & Tesch, P. A. (1988). Skeletal
muscle fiber type composition and performance during
repeated bouts of maximal, concentric contractions. European
Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology,58,
81–86. doi:10.1007/BF00636607
Crewther, B., Cronin, J., & Keogh, J. (2005). Possible stimuli
forstrengthandpoweradaptation: Acute mechanical
responses. Sports Medicine,35,967–989. doi:10.2165/
00007256-200535110-00004
Cronin, J., McNair, P. J., & Marshall, R. N. (2001). Velocity
specificity, combination training and sport specific tasks.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,4, 168–178.
doi:10.1016/S1440-2440(01)80027-X
Desmedt, J. E., & Godaux, E. (1978). Ballistic contractions in fast
or slow human muscles: Discharge patterns of single motor
units. Journal of Physiology,285, 185–196.
Fielding,R.A.,LeBrasseur,N.K.,Cuoco,A.,Bean,J.,Mizer,K.,&
Fiatarone Singh, M. A. (2002). High-velocity resistance training
increases skeletal muscle peak power in older women. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society,50, 655–662. doi:10.1046/j.1532-
5415.2002.50159.x
Gentil, P., Oliveira, E., & Bottaro, M. (2006). Time under tension
and blood lactate response during four different resistance
training methods. Journal of Physiological Anthropology,25,
339–344. doi:10.2114/jpa2.25.339
González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010). Movement
velocity as a measure of loading intensity in resistance training.
International Journal of Sports Medicine,31, 347–352. doi:10.1055/
s-0030-1248333
Gorostiaga, E. M., Asiáin, X., Izquierdo, M., Postigo, A., Aguado,
R., Alonso, J. M., & Ibáñez, J. (2010). Vertical jump performance
and blood ammonia and lactate levels during typical training
sessions in elite 400-m runners. Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Research,24, 1138–1149. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181cf769f
Gorostiaga, E. M., Navarro-Amézqueta, I., Calbet, J. A., Hellsten,
Y., Cusso, R., Guerrero, M., …Izquierdo, M. (2012). Energy
metabolism during repeated sets of leg press exercise leading to
failure or not. PLoS One,7, e40621. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0040621.t002
Hatfield, D. L., Kraemer, W. J., Spiering, B. A., Häkkinen, K.,
Volek, J. S., Shimano, T., …Maresh, C. M.. (2006). The
impact of velocity of movement on performance factors in
resistance exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research,20, 760–766.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-
analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hunter, G. R., Seelhorst, D., & Snyder, S. (2003). Comparison of
metabolic and heart rate responses to super slow vs. traditional
resistance training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research,
17,76–81.
Ingebrigtsen, J., Holtermann, A., & Roeleveld, K. (2009). Effects of
load and contraction velocity during three-week biceps curls
training on isometric and isokinetic performance. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research,23, 1670–1676. doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181b3f37b
Izquierdo, M., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ibáñez, J.,
Kraemer, W. J., Altadill, A., …Gorostiaga, E. M. (2006).
Effect of loading on unintentional lifting velocity declines
during single sets of repetitions to failure during upper and
lower extremity muscle actions. International Journal of Sports
Medicine,27, 718–724. doi:10.1055/s-2005-872825
Izquierdo, M., Ibañez, J., Calbet, J. A. L., González-Izal, M.,
Navarro-Amézqueta, I., Granados, C., …Gorostiaga, E. M.
(2009). Neuromuscular fatigue after resistance training. Inter-
national Journal of Sports Medicine,30, 614–623. doi:10.1055/s-
0029-1214379
Jones, K., Hunter, G., Fleisig, G., Escamilla, R., & Lemak, L.
(1999). The effects of compensatory acceleration on upper-
body strength and power in collegiate football players. Journal
of Strength and Conditioning Research,13,99–105.
Kanehisa, H., & Miyashita, M. (1983). Specificity of velocity in
strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology,52, 104–106. doi:10.1007/BF00429034
Mazzetti, S., Douglass, M., Yocum, A., & Harber, M. (2007). Effect
of explosive versus slow contractions and exercise intensity on
energy expenditure. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,39,
1291–1301. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318058a603
Mitchell, C. J., Churchward-Venne, T. A., West, D. W., Burd, N.
A., Breen, L., Baker, S. K., & Phillips, S. M. (2012).
Resistance exercise load does not determine training-mediated
hypertrophic gains in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology,
113,71–77. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00307.2012
Morrissey,M.C.,Harman,E.A.,Frykman,P.N.,&Han,K.H.
(1998). Early phase differential effects of slow and fast barbell
squat training. American Journal of Sports Medicine,26, 221–230.
Munn, J., Herbert, R. D., Hancock, M. J., & Gandevia, S. C.
(2005). Resistance training for strength: Effect of number of sets
and contraction speed. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
37, 1622–1626. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000177583.41245.f8
Paddon-Jones, D., Leveritt, M., Lonergan, A., & Abernethy, P.
(2001). Adaptation to chronic eccentric exercise in humans:
The influence of contraction velocity. European Journal of
Applied Physiology,85, 466–471. doi:10.1007/s004210100467
Pereira, M. I., & Gomes, P. S. (2003). Movement velocity in
resistance training. Sports Medicine,33, 427–438. doi:10.2165/
00007256-200333060-00004
Pereira, M. I., & Gomes, P. S. (2007). Effects of isotonic
resistance training at two movement velocities on strength
gains. Brazilian Journal of Sports Medicine,13,79–83.
Sakamoto, A., & Sinclair, P. J. (2012). Muscle activations under
varying lifting speeds and intensities during bench press.
European Journal of Applied Physiology,112, 1015–1025.
doi:10.1007/s00421-011-2059-0
Sánchez-Medina, L., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2011). Velocity loss
as an indicator of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance
training. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,43,
1725–1734. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213f880
Sánchez-Medina, L., González-Badillo, J. J., Pérez, C. E., &
Pallarés, J. G. (2014). Velocity- and power-load relationships of
the bench pull versus bench press exercises. International
Journal of Sports Medicine,35, 209–216 doi:10.1055/s-0033-
1351252
Sánchez-Medina, L., Pérez, C. E., & González-Badillo, J. J.
(2010). Importance of the propulsive phase in strength assess-
ment. International Journal of Sports Medicine,31, 123–129.
doi:10.1055/s-0029-1242815
780 J. J. González-Badillo et al.
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014

Schilling, B., Falvo, M., & Chiu, L. Z. (2008). Force-velocity,
impulse-momentum relationships: Implications for efficacy of
purposefully slow resistance training. Journal of Sports Science
and Medicine,7, 299–304.
Spiering, B. A., Kraemer, W. J., Anderson, J. M., Armstrong, L.
E., Nindl, B. C., Volek, J. S., & Maresh, C. M. (2008).
Resistance exercise biology: Manipulation of resistance exercise
programme variables determines the responses of cellular and
molecular signalling pathways. Sports Medicine,38, 527–540.
doi:10.2165/00007256-200838070-00001
Toigo, M., & Boutellier, U. (2006). New fundamental resistance
exercise determinants of molecular and cellular muscle adapta-
tions. European Journal of Applied Physiology,97, 643–663.
doi:10.1007/s00421-006-0238-1
Young, W. B., & Bilby, G. E. (1993). The effect of voluntary
effort to influence speed of contraction on strength, muscular
power, and hypertrophy development. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research,7, 172–178.
Movement velocity in resistance training 781
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014