ArticlePDF Available

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

Authors:
  • Centro de Investigación en Rendimiento Físico y Deportivo, Universidad Pablo de Olavide

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.
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, 772781, 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 fastand slowtraining 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 24 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 loadvelocity 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 reps 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 sessions 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 (0.300.50
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 loadvelocity 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 (5080% 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 loadvelocity 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
4872 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
),
3×6rep70% 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 manufacturers
specifications. In order to quantify the extent of
neuromuscular fatigue induced by each protocol, we
examined the prepost 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 Levenes 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 Hedgesg
(Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Study II. A 2 × 3 within
within factorial ANOVA with Bonferronis post-hoc
comparisons was used to compare differences across
the three RT protocols analysed (3 × 8 60% 1RM,
3×670% 1RM and 3 × 3 80% 1RM) and the
two velocity conditions (MaxV vs. HalfV). ESs were
calculated using Hedgesgto 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). Prepost change in the
velocity attained against the V
1
load was significantly
higher (P<0.01) for MaxV compared to HalfV for
3×8with60%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;
, prepost 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 fastvs. slowtraining 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 fastand slowtraining
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 fastand
slowgroups, 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
Prepost 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<0.050.01), 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 (6080% 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, 13181326.
Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Intended rather than actual
movement velocity determines velocity-specific training response.
Journal of Applied Physiology,74, 359368. 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, 986994. 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, 27392748. 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,
8186. doi:10.1007/BF00636607
Crewther, B., Cronin, J., & Keogh, J. (2005). Possible stimuli
forstrengthandpoweradaptation: Acute mechanical
responses. Sports Medicine,35,967989. 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, 168178.
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, 185196.
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, 655662. 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,
339344. 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, 347352. 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, 11381149. 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, 760766.
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,
17,7681.
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, 16701676. 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, 718724. 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, 614623. 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,13,99105.
Kanehisa, H., & Miyashita, M. (1983). Specificity of velocity in
strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology and
Occupational Physiology,52, 104106. 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,
12911301. 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,
113,7177. 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, 221230.
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, 16221626. 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, 466471. doi:10.1007/s004210100467
Pereira, M. I., & Gomes, P. S. (2003). Movement velocity in
resistance training. Sports Medicine,33, 427438. 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,13,7983.
Sakamoto, A., & Sinclair, P. J. (2012). Muscle activations under
varying lifting speeds and intensities during bench press.
European Journal of Applied Physiology,112, 10151025.
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,
17251734. 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, 209216 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, 123129.
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, 299304.
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, 527540.
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, 643663.
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, 172178.
Movement velocity in resistance training 781
Downloaded by [Universidad Pablo de Olavide] at 02:28 05 November 2014
... Warm-ups consisted of: 5 min of band jogging at 8 km/h, 5 min of active stretching and joint mobility and three series of eight full squat and bench press repetitions using only the weight of the bar. After three minutes of recovery, the maximum force was estimated [35]. ...
... m·s −1 ) [38] and in a controlled motion until reaching 1 cm from the upper part of the xiphoid process. They were then told to stop for approximately 1.5 s [35] until the evaluator instructed them to extend their arms at maximum velocity without raising their trunk or shoulders from the bench. This protocol was followed to avoid the rebound effect and provide more reproducible and consistent measurements. ...
... Three minutes of rest was given between sets for loads lower than 80% of the estimated 1RM, and five minutes of rest was allowed between sets for loads greater than 80% of the estimated 1RM [35,41]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to determine the mean propulsive velocity (MVP) at various percentages of one repetition maximum (1RM) in the full squat and chest press exercises. A total of 96 young women and 256 young men (recreational athletes) performed an incremental test (50–60–70–80% 1RM) comprising the bench press and full squat exercises in two different sessions. The individual load and velocity ratios were established through the MPV. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 25.0, with the significance level set at 5%. The following findings were revealed: highly linear load-velocity relationships in the group of women (r = 0.806 in the squat, and r = 0.872 in the bench press) and in the group of men (r = 0.832 and r = 0.880, respectively); significant differences (p < 0.001) in the MPV at 50–70–80% 1RM between the bench press and the full squat in men and at 70–80% 1RM in women; and a high variability in the MPV (11.49% to 22.63) in the bench press and full squat (11.58% to 25.15%) was observed in women and men (11.31% to 21.06%, and 9.26% to 24.2%) at the different percentages of 1RM evaluated. These results suggest that the load-velocity ratio in non-strength-trained subjects should be determined individually to more precisely establish the relative load to be used in a full squat and bench press training program.
... The acute and chronic effects of manipulating different RT variables (e.g., volume, relative load, rest periods, type and order of exercises, and training frequency) have been widely studied in the scientific literature [2,3]. However, the effects of voluntarily manipulating movement velocity have been much less studied to date, despite the importance recently placed on this variable in relation to specific adaptations consequent to RT [4][5][6]. An analysis of the mechanical and metabolic responses to different resistance exercise protocols (REP) in which movement velocity is considered as the independent variable can provide further insight into the mechanisms underlying the adaptations that may occur following a training period under different velocity conditions. ...
... An analysis of the mechanical and metabolic responses to different resistance exercise protocols (REP) in which movement velocity is considered as the independent variable can provide further insight into the mechanisms underlying the adaptations that may occur following a training period under different velocity conditions. There is some evidence that the actual velocity at which loads are lifted during RT has a differential effect on the resulting neuromuscular adaptations [4,6] which, in turn, may affect physical and sports performance. ...
... Several studies have compared the acute kinetic, kinematic and physiological effects of resistance exercise performed at different movement velocities [7][8][9]. Most of these studies have observed greater oxygen uptake, heart rate, blood lactate and ammonia concentrations, as well as increased losses in vertical jump height when training was performed at "fast" versus "slow" velocities [4,[6][7][8][9][10]. Previous research has also provided evidence that: 1) both the neuromuscular demands and the training effect itself largely depend on the velocity at which loads are lifted; and 2) movement velocity depends on the load to overcome and the voluntary intent of the subject to move that load [4][5][6]. ...
Article
This study aimed to analyze the acute mechanical, metabolic and EMG response to five resistance exercise protocols (REP) in the full squat (SQ) exercise performed with 2 velocity conditions: maximal intended velocity (MaxV) vs. half-maximal velocity (HalfV). Eleven resistance-trained men performed 10 REP (5 with each velocity conditions) in random order (72-96 h apart). The REP consisted of 3 sets of 8-3 repetitions against 45-65% 1RM. The percent change in countermovement jump (CMJ) height, velocity attained with the load that elicited a ~1.00 m·s-1 (V1-load), surface EMG variables and blood lactate concentration were assessed pre- vs. post-exercise protocols. MaxV resulted in greater percent changes (Δ: 12-25%) and intra-condition effect sizes (ES: 0.76-4.84) in loss of V1-load and CMJ height compared to HalfV (Δ: 10-16%; ES: 0.65-3.90) following all REP. In addition, MaxV showed higher post-exercise lactate concentration than HalfV (ES: 0.46-0.83; p<0.05). For EMG variables, only the Dimitrov index resulted in relevant changes after each REP, with MaxV showing greater magnitude of changes (23-38%) than HalfV (12-25%) across all REP. These results suggest that voluntary movement velocity is a key aspect to consider since it clearly determines the overall training intensity during resistance exercise.
... However, the effect of resistance training on the inflammatory profile and redox regulation is still controversial. Some studies investigated different biomarkers and training methods while others did not equalize the training protocols and did not monitor repetition duration [3,4,9]. Thus, the equalization of training protocols will provide more accurate results compared to resistance training protocols. ...
... As previously mentioned, studies that compared different training strategies showed methodological gaps that may interfere with the interpretation of the results [3,9]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study is aimed at evaluating the profile of inflammatory markers and components of redox regulation in untrained women after 10 weeks of resistance training using equalized protocols but different muscle action duration (MAD). Twenty-two women underwent progressive resistance training exercising the knee extensor muscles for 10 weeks—3x/week, with 3-5 sets of 6 repetitions at 50% of the 1 repetition maximum strength test (1RM), with a rest of 180 s between the series, following the training protocol (i) 5 s of concentric muscle action for 1 s of eccentric muscle action (5C-1E) and (ii) 1 s of concentric muscle action for 5 s of eccentric muscle action (1C-5E). Quadriceps muscle hypertrophy maximum strength (1RM) and redox regulation/muscle damage/inflammatory markers (CAT, SOD, TBARS, FRAP, CH, LDH, CXCL8, and CCL2) were evaluated. Plasma markers were evaluated before and 30 minutes after the first and last training sessions. A similar gain in hypertrophy and maximum strength was observed in both groups. However, in the 5C-1E, a significant major effect was observed for SOD (F1.19=10.480, p=0.004) and a significant major time effect, with a reduction in the last training session, was observed for CXCL8 (F1.37=27.440, p<0.001). In conclusion, similar protocols of resistance training, with different MAD, produced similar inflammatory and adaptive responses to strength training. As the training load is progressive, the maintenance of this inflammatory and redox regulation profile suggests an adaptive response to the proposed strength training.
... It has been found that among males, the use of barbell velocity training can have a positive effect on training. Training at higher maximal velocities leads to greater gains in strength compared to lower velocities [83]. Barbell velocity-based training is becoming popular within S&C for a variety of reasons, one of which is the feasibility of its application. ...
... Maintaining velocity throughout the training session in strength-based phases is important as training at higher velocities rather than lower velocities can lead to greater strength gains [83]. The greatest difference in average training velocity using the bench press was observed in the last repetitions of the set [81], suggesting that velocity may decrease as repetitions increase for the bench press. ...
Article
Full-text available
Participation by female athletes in competitive sport has increased dramatically since the inception of Title IX, although female athletes are represented significantly less than their male counterparts in strength and conditioning (S&C) literature. This is apparent when examining current identified trends in the field, such as implementation of blood flow restriction (BFR) training, functional assessments to predict injuries, or the ever-increasing use of technology in sports. The aim of this review is to examine three prevalent trends in contemporary S&C literature as they relate to female athletes in order to expose areas lacking in research. We conducted journal and database searches to progressively deepen our examination of available research, starting first with broad emerging themes within S&C, followed next by an inquiry into literature concerning S&C practices in females, ending finally with a review of emerging topics concerning female athletes. To this end, 534 articles were reviewed from PubMed, Academic Search Complete, Google Scholar, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. Results demonstrate the utility of implementing BFR, functional movement assessments, and various technologies among this population to expand representation of female athletes in S&C literature, improve athletic capabilities and performance, and decrease potential for injury over time.
... To address some of the issues associated with set termination prescriptions for non-failure RT, various studies have employed a velocity-based approach whereby RT sets are performed until the lifting velocity (i.e., the absolute velocity of the concentric portion of the repetition) decreases by a specific percentage of the velocity achieved on the first (or fastest) repetition (e.g., performing repetitions with a given relative load until a 20% velocity loss occurs). While this approach theoretically results in differences in the proximity-to-failure achieved between different velocity loss conditions, the volume-load completed between conditions also differs, and participants in these studies are instructed to perform each repetition with maximal intended lifting velocity (unlike many other studies that don't use velocity loss thresholds), which can influence physiological adaptations independent of proximity-tofailure (Gonzalez-Badillo et al., 2014). The proximity-tofailure achieved likely also varies between individuals Concentric failure " . . . ...
Article
While proximity-to-failure is considered an important resistance training (RT) prescription variable, its influence on physiological adaptations and short-term responses to RT is uncertain. Given the ambiguity in the literature, a scoping review was undertaken to summarise evidence for the influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy, neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage and perceived discomfort. Literature searching was performed according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines and identified three themes of studies comparing either: i) RT performed to momentary muscular failure versus non-failure, ii) RT performed to set failure (defined as anything other than momentary muscular failure) versus non-failure, and iii) RT performed to different velocity loss thresholds. The findings highlight that no consensus definition for "failure" exists in the literature, and the proximity-to-failure achieved in "non-failure" conditions is often ambiguous and variable across studies. This poses challenges when deriving practical recommendations for manipulating proximity-to-failure in RT to achieve desired outcomes. Based on the limited available evidence, RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT for inducing muscle hypertrophy, but may exacerbate neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and post-set perceived discomfort versus non-failure RT. Together, these factors may impair post-exercise recovery and subsequent performance, and may also negatively influence long-term adherence to RT. KEY POINTS (1) This scoping review identified three broad themes of studies investigating proximity-to-failure in RT, based on the specific definition of set failure used (and therefore the research question being examined), to improve the validity of study comparisons and interpretations. (2) There is no consensus definition for set failure in RT, and the proximity-to-failure achieved during non-failure RT is often unclear and varies both within and between studies, which together poses challenges when interpreting study findings and deriving practical recommendations regarding the influence of RT proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy and other short-term responses. (3) Based on the limited available evidence, performing RT to set failure is likely not superior to non-failure RT to maximise muscle hypertrophy, but the optimal proximity to failure in RT for muscle hypertrophy is unclear and may be moderated by other RT variables (e.g., load, volume-load). Also, RT performed to set failure likely induces greater neuromuscular fatigue, muscle damage, and perceived discomfort than non-failure RT, which may negatively influence RT performance, post-RT recovery, and long-term adherence.
... Velocity-based training (VBT) frequents strength and conditioning (S&C) literature, often being referred to as a way of training as opposed to more suitably as an encompassing approach with many applications. [1][2][3][4] All of these applications, however, typically have one common denominator the use of technology (e.g. linear position transducers, accelerometers, laser-optics, smartphone applications) to track and measure movement velocity. ...
Article
Full-text available
Velocity-based training (VBT) is a contemporary prescriptive, programming, and testing tool commonly utilised in strength and conditioning (S&C). Over recent years, there has been an influx of peer-reviewed literature investigating several different applications (e.g. load-velocity profiling, velocity loss, load manipulation, and reliability of technology) of VBT. The procedures implemented in research, however, do not always reflect the practices within applied environments. The aim of this study, therefore, was to investigate the perceptions and applications of VBT within elite S&C to enhance contextual understanding and develop appropriate avenues of practitioner-focused research. Fourteen high-performance S&C coaches participated in semi-structured interviews to discuss their experiences of implementing VBT into their practices. Reflexive thematic analysis was adopted, following an inductive and realist approach. Three central organising themes emerged: Technology, applications, and reflections. Within these central themes, higher order themes consisting of drivers for buying technology; programming, testing, monitoring, and feedback; and benefits, drawbacks, and future uses also emerged. Practitioners reported varied drivers and applications of VBT, often being dictated by simplicity, environmental context, and personal preferences. Coaches perceived VBT to be a beneficial tool yet were cognizant of the drawbacks and challenges in certain settings. VBT is a flexible tool that can support and aid several aspects of S&C planning and delivery, with coaches valuing the impact it can have on training environments, objective prescriptions, tracking player readiness, and programme success.
... The technique used for each RT exercise, during both training and testing sessions, was detailed in Sánchez-Medina et al 23 (2) maximal intended velocity. 28,29 These aspects were supervised in all training and testing sessions by 2 experienced researchers. Compliance with the training program was 100% for the 4 experimental groups. ...
Article
Purpose: To compare the strength and athletic adaptations induced by 4 programming models. Methods: Fifty-two men were allocated into 1 of the following models: linear programming (intensity increased while intraset volume decreased), undulating programming (intensity and intraset volume were varied in each session or set of sessions), reverse programming (intensity decreased while intraset volume increased), or constant programming (intensity and intraset volume kept constant throughout the training plan). All groups completed a 10-week resistance-training program made up of the free-weight bench press, squat, deadlift, prone bench pull, and shoulder press exercises. The 4 models used the same frequency (2 sessions per week), number of sets (3 per exercise), interset recoveries (4 min), and average intensity throughout the intervention (77.5%). The velocity-based method was used to accurately adjust the planned intensity for each model. Results: The 4 programming models exhibited significant pre-post changes in most strength variables analyzed. When considering the effect sizes for the 5 exercises trained, we observed that the undulating programming (mean effect size = 0.88-2.92) and constant programming (mean effect size = 0.61-1.65) models induced the highest and lowest strength enhancements, respectively. Moreover, the 4 programming models were found to be effective to improve performance during shorter (jump and sprint tests) and longer (upper- and lower-limb Wingate test) anaerobic tasks, with no significant differences between them. Conclusion: The linear, undulating, reverse, and constant programming models are similarly effective to improve strength and athletic performance when they are implemented in a real-context routine.
... The CE was set so that participants self-selected the absolute load that allowed them to approximately perform a maximum number of possible repetitions (Supplementary Table S1) but performed half of the possible repetitions to maximize strength gains [49,50] and minimize risks. For greater strength gains, participants were required to perform the concentric phase of each exercise at their maximum voluntary velocity [46,51]. The resting periods between sets of a given exercise ranged from 1.5 to 3 min [46]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: This study assessed the effects of 12-week supervised resistance training combined with home-based physical activity on physical fitness, cancer-related fatigue, depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and life satisfaction in female breast cancer survivors. Methods: A parallel-group, outcome assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial included 60 female breast cancer survivors who had completed their core treatments within the previous 10 years. Through computer-generated simple rand-omization, participants were assigned to resistance training (RTG; two sessions/week for 12 weeks plus instructions to undertake ≥ 10,000 steps/d) or control (CG; ≥ 10,000 steps/d only). Outcomes were evaluated at baseline and week 12. Muscular strength was assessed with electromechanical dynamometry. A standardized full-body muscular strength score was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included cardiorespiratory fitness, shoulder mobility, cancer-related fatigue, depressive symptoms, HRQoL, and life satisfaction. Results: Thirty-two participants were assigned to RTG (29 achieved ≥ 75% attendance) and 28 to CG (all completed the trial). Intention-to-treat analyses revealed that the standardized full-body muscular strength score increased significantly in the RTG compared to the CG (0.718; 95% CI 0.361-1.074, P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.04). This increase was consistent for the standardized scores of upper-body (0.727; 95% CI 0.294-1.160, P = 0.001, d = 0.87) and lower-body (0.709; 95% CI 0.324-1.094, P = 0.001, d = 0.96) strength. There was no effect on cardiorespiratory fitness, shoulder flexion, cancer-related fatigue, depressive symptoms, HRQoL, or life satisfaction. The sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. Conclusion and implication for cancer survivors: In female breast cancer survivors who had completed their core treatments within the past 10 years, adding two weekly sessions of supervised resistance training to a prescription of home-based physical activity for 12 weeks produced a large increase in upper-, lower-, and full-body muscular strength, while other fitness components and patient-reported outcomes did not improve. Trial registration number: ISRCTN14601208.
... Los descansos entre series fueron de tres minutos para cargas inferiores al 80% de la RM estimada y de 5 minutos para cargas superiores al 80% de la RM estimada (Fernández-Ortega, Hoyos-Cuartas, & Ruiz-Arias, 2017; Gonzalez-Badillo et al., 2014). VMP y potencia. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objetivo: Comparar la tasa de fuerza relativa (TFR) con distintos indicadores de fuerza en mujeres jóvenes. Métodos: Se evaluaron a 146 mujeres que se distribuyeron en tres grupos de acuerdo con los resultados de la TFR obtenida en el ejercicio de sentadilla y se compararon los resultados obtenidos en las pruebas de Fuerza prensil de la mano derecha e izquierda (FPMD- FPMI), Fuerza isométrica miembros inferiores (FIMI), Fuerza máxima de pecho (FMP), Fuerza máxima en sentadilla (FMS) Velocidad de desplazamiento sobre treinta metros (V30), altura del salto en (CMJ), potencia de pedaleo (PP) y la velocidad media propulsiva de miembros superiores e inferiores (VMPMS-VMPMI) obtenida al 50%, 60%, 70% y 80% de una repetición máxima en sentadilla. Resultados: Se observaron diferencias significativas (p?0,01) entre los grupos en la FMS, CMJ, V30, VMP y PP, y la mayoría de las variables presentaban la diferencia entre el G1 y G3 (p?0,01).
Article
Background Using lifting straps during pulling exercises (such as deadlift) may increase absolute velocity performance. However, it remains unclear whether lifting straps could also reduce the degree of relative fatigue measured by velocity decline and maintenance in a training set. Hypothesis There will be less mean velocity decline (MVD) and greater mean velocity maintenance (MVM) for deadlifts performed with (DLw) compared with without (DLn) lifting straps, and an underestimation of MVD and MVM when using the first compared with the fastest repetition as a reference repetition. Study Design Randomized cross over design. Level of Evidence Level 3. Methods A total of 16 resistance-trained men performed a familiarization session, 2 1-repetition maximum [1RM] sessions (1 with and 1 without lifting straps), and 3 randomly applied experimental sessions consisting of 4 sets of 4 repetitions: (1) DLw against the 80% of DLn 1RM (DLwn), (2) DLn against the 80% of the DLn 1RM (DLnn), and (3) DLw against the 80% of the DLw 1RM (DLww). MVD and MVM were calculated using the first and the fastest repetition as the reference repetition. Results MVD was significantly lower during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLww ( P < 0.01), whereas MVM was greater during DLwn and DLnn compared with DLwn ( P < 0.01) with no differences between DLwn and DLnn for both MVD and MVM ( P > 0.05). The second repetition of the set was generally the fastest (54.1%) and lower MVD and higher MVM were observed when the first repetition was used as the reference repetition ( P < 0.05). Conclusions Lifting straps were not effective at reducing MVD and increasing MVM when the same absolute loads were lifted. Furthermore, using the first repetition as the reference repetition underestimated MVD, and overestimated MVM. Clinical relevance The fastest repetition should be used as the reference repetition to avoid inducing excessive fatigue when the first repetition is not the fastest.
Article
Full-text available
Considerando a necessidade de prescrever o treinamento adequadamente, o objetivo deste estudo foi comparar o efeito do treinamento contra-resistência, isotônico, a 0,44 e 1,75 rad·s1 sobre os ganhos de força muscular. Quatorze voluntários saudáveis foram estratificados em grupos lento (GL: 0,44 rad·s1; n = 8; 26 ± 7 anos; 66 ± 12 kg) e rápido (GR: 1,75 rad·s1; n = 6; 28 ± 7 anos; 55 ± 9 kg) exercitando agachamento e supino reto (1 série, 8-10 RM, 3 x/semana, 12 semanas). Seis desses sujeitos fizeram parte de um grupo de comparação (GC: 25 ± 6 anos; 59 ± 13 kg) e não treinaram durante um período de controle de 12 semanas antecedendo o treinamento. O teste t dependente não mostrou diferenças nas variáveis medidas para GC. A ANOVA 2 x 2 com medidas repetidas mostrou ganhos significativos (P < 0,05) em ambos os grupos de treinamento e ambos os exercícios para 1 RM (GL: 27,6 ± 16,8% e 16,8 ± 11,8%; GR: 21,4 ± 12,6% e 16,2 ± 14,1%, agachamento e supino, respectivamente) e 8-10 RM testado a 0,44 rad·s1 (GL: 36,0 ± 22,4% e 14,7 ± 9,2%; GR: 31,1 ± 19,2% e 18,8 ± 8,7%) e 1,75 rad·s1 (GL: 27,2 ± 11,1% e 15,2 ± 11,4%; GR: 23,6 ± 19,2% e 20,9 ± 9,8%), sem diferenças significativas entre grupos. Resultados deste estudo não deram suporte à especificidade da velocidade no treinamento com equipamento isotônico.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this brief review is to explain the mechanical relationship between impulse and momentum when resistance exercise is performed in a purposefully slow manner (PS). PS is recognized by ~10s concentric and ~4-10s eccentric actions. While several papers have reviewed the effects of PS, none has yet explained such resistance training in the context of the impulse-momentum relationship. A case study of normal versus PS back squats was also performed. An 85kg man performed both normal speed (3 sec eccentric action and maximal acceleration concentric action) and PS back squats over a several loads. Normal speed back squats produced both greater peak and mean propulsive forces than PS action when measured across all loads. However, TUT was greatly increased in the PS condition, with values fourfold greater than maximal acceleration repetitions. The data and explanation herein point to superior forces produced by the neuromuscular system via traditional speed training indicating a superior modality for inducing neuromuscular adaptation. Key pointsAs velocity approaches zero, propulsive force approaches zero, therefore slow moving objects only require force approximately equal to the weight of the resistance.As mass is constant during resistance training, a greater impulse will result in a greater velocity.The inferior propulsive forces accompanying purposefully slow training suggest other methods of resistance training have a greater potential for adaptation.
Article
Full-text available
This investigation examined the influence of the number of repetitions per set on power output and muscle metabolism during leg press exercise. Six trained men (age 34 ± 6 yr) randomly performed either 5 sets of 10 repetitions (10REP), or 10 sets of 5 repetitions (5REP) of bilateral leg press exercise, with the same initial load and rest intervals between sets. Muscle biopsies (vastus lateralis) were taken before the first set, and after the first and the final sets. Compared with 5REP, 10REP resulted in a markedly greater decrease (P<0.05) of the power output, muscle PCr and ATP content, and markedly higher (P<0.05) levels of muscle lactate and IMP. Significant correlations (P<0.01) were observed between changes in muscle PCr and muscle lactate (R(2) = 0.46), between changes in muscle PCr and IMP (R(2) = 0.44) as well as between changes in power output and changes in muscle ATP (R(2) = 0.59) and lactate (R(2) = 0.64) levels. Reducing the number of repetitions per set by 50% causes a lower disruption to the energy balance in the muscle. The correlations suggest that the changes in PCr and muscle lactate mainly occur simultaneously during exercise, whereas IMP only accumulates when PCr levels are low. The decrease in ATP stores may contribute to fatigue.
Article
Full-text available
We have reported that the acute postexercise increases in muscle protein synthesis rates, with differing nutritional support, are predictive of longer-term training-induced muscle hypertrophy. Here, we aimed to test whether the same was true with acute exercise-mediated changes in muscle protein synthesis. Eighteen men (21 ± 1 yr, 22.6 ± 2.1 kg/m(2); means ± SE) had their legs randomly assigned to two of three training conditions that differed in contraction intensity [% of maximal strength (1 repetition maximum)] or contraction volume (1 or 3 sets of repetitions): 30%-3, 80%-1, and 80%-3. Subjects trained each leg with their assigned regime for a period of 10 wk, 3 times/wk. We made pre- and posttraining measures of strength, muscle volume by magnetic resonance (MR) scans, as well as pre- and posttraining biopsies of the vastus lateralis, and a single postexercise (1 h) biopsy following the first bout of exercise, to measure signaling proteins. Training-induced increases in MR-measured muscle volume were significant (P < 0.01), with no difference between groups: 30%-3 = 6.8 ± 1.8%, 80%-1 = 3.2 ± 0.8%, and 80%-3= 7.2 ± 1.9%, P = 0.18. Isotonic maximal strength gains were not different between 80%-1 and 80%-3, but were greater than 30%-3 (P = 0.04), whereas training-induced isometric strength gains were significant but not different between conditions (P = 0.92). Biopsies taken 1 h following the initial resistance exercise bout showed increased phosphorylation (P < 0.05) of p70S6K only in the 80%-1 and 80%-3 conditions. There was no correlation between phosphorylation of any signaling protein and hypertrophy. In accordance with our previous acute measurements of muscle protein synthetic rates a lower load lifted to failure resulted in similar hypertrophy as a heavy load lifted to failure.
Article
Recent advances in molecular biology have elucidated some of the mechanisms that regulate skeletal muscle growth. Logically, muscle physiologists have applied these innovations to the study of resistance exercise (RE), as RE represents the most potent natural stimulus for growth in adult skeletal muscle. However, as this molecular-based line of research progresses to investigations in humans, scientists must appreciate the fundamental principles of RE to effectively design such experiments. Therefore, we present herein an updated paradigm of RE biology that integrates fundamental RE principles with the current knowledge of muscle cellular and molecular signalling. RE invokes a sequential cascade consisting of: (i) muscle activation; (ii) signalling events arising from mechanical deformation of muscle fibres, hormones, and immune/inflammatory responses; (iii) protein synthesis due to increased transcription and translation; and (iv) muscle fibre hypertrophy. In this paradigm, RE is considered an ‘upstream’ signal that determines specific downstream events. Therefore, manipulation of the acute RE programme variables (i.e. exercise choice, load, volume, rest period lengths, and exercise order) alters the unique ‘fingerprint’ of the RE stimulus and subsequently modifies the downstream cellular and molecular responses.
Article
This study compared the velocity- and power-load relationships of the antagonistic upper-body exercises of prone bench pull (PBP) and bench press (BP). 75 resistance-trained athletes performed a progressive loading test in each exercise up to the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in random order. Velocity and power output across the 30-100% 1RM were significantly higher for PBP, whereas 1RM strength was greater for BP. A very close relationship was observed between relative load and mean propulsive velocity for both BP (R2=0.97) and PBP (R2=0.94) which enables us to estimate %1RM from velocity using the obtained prediction equations. Important differences in the load that maximizes power output (Pmax) and the power profiles of both exercises were found according to the outcome variable used: mean (MP), peak (PP) or mean propulsive power (MPP). When MP was considered, the Pmax load was higher (56% BP, 70% PBP) than when PP (37% BP, 41% PBP) or MPP (37% BP, 46% PBP) were used. For each variable there was a broad range of loads at which power output was not significantly different. The differing velocity- and power-load relationships between PBP and BP seem attributable to the distinct muscle architecture and moment arm levers involved in these exercises.
Article
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of maximum concentric acceleration training versus traditional upper-body training on the development of strength and power of collegiate NCAA Division 1AA football players. Power was tested with a seated medicine ball throw (n = 30) and a force platform plyometric push-up test (n = 24). Upper-body strength was tested by using a bench press with 1 repetition maximum (1RM) (n = 30). All players were on an identical off-season weight-training program. The control group performed exercises with conventional concentric velocity and the experimental group performed the concentric phase of each repetition as rapidly as possible. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to determine training and group differences. Significant training effects for all strength and power measures indicated that both groups increased strength and power. Significant training by group interaction indicates the experimental group increased significantly more than the control group in the bench press (+9.85 kg vs. +5.00 kg) and throw (+0.69 m vs. +0.22 m). Significance was not reached for any of the training by group interactions for force platform variables (amortization time -0.46 seconds for the experimental group vs. -0.22 seconds for the control group; average power was +365 W for the experimental group vs. +108 W for the control group). The results of this study support the use of maximal acceleration of concentric contractions by collegiate football players during upper-body strength and power training. (C) 1999 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
This study investigated the effects of execution speed on measures of strength, muscular power, and hypertrophy. Eighteen male subjects trained with the half-squat exercise using an 8- to 12-RM load for 7-1/2 weeks. Eight subjects tried to produce fast concentric contractions while 10 subjects emphasized slow controlled movements. Both groups improved significantly in all measures; however, no significant differences were observed between the groups over the training period. Trends based on percentage improvements gave some support for the fast group improving more (68.7%) than the slow group (23.5%) in maximum rate of force development. The slow group improved to a greater extent (31%) that the fast group (12.4%) in absolute isometric strength, whereas the percentage gains in hypertrophy were similar for both groups. It was concluded that strength, speed-strength, and hypertrophy measures can be simultaneously developed significantly in beginning weight trainers. Beginner athletes should consider the possible effects of consciously controlling speed of contraction in weight training. (C) 1993 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Article
Surface and bulk traps along with positive oxide charge accumulation have been found to be generated in metal‐oxide‐semiconductor capacitors, when subjected to negative air corona discharge at slightly reduced pressure (≂10<sup>-1</sup> Torr). The effects are neutralized and device quality improved when annealed at 200 °C in air. The bulk traps and a fraction of oxide charges were annealable when kept at room temperature for several months. The results have been analyzed by Nicollian–Goetzberger’s conductance technique and a plausible explanation is given.