Comparison of velocity-based and traditional 1RM-percent-based prescription on acute kinetic and kinematic variables

BANYARD, Harry G., TUFANO, James J., DELGADO, Jose, THOMPSON, Steve and NOSAKA, Kazunori (2018). Comparison of velocity-based and traditional 1RM-percent-based prescription on acute kinetic and kinematic variables. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance.

Preview

PDF Thompson-ComparisonOfVelocity-BasedAndTraditional(AM).pdf - Accepted Version All rights reserved. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared kinetic and kinematic data from three different velocity-based training (VBT) sessions and a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) percent-based training (PBT) session using full-depth, free-weight back squats with maximal concentric effort. Methods: Fifteen strength-trained men performed four randomized resistance-training sessions 96-hours apart: PBT session involved five sets of five repetitions using 80%1RM; load-velocity profile (LVP) session contained five sets of five repetitions with a load that could be adjusted to achieve a target velocity established from an individualized LVP equation at 80%1RM; fixed sets 20% velocity loss threshold (FSVL20) session that consisted of five sets at 80%1RM but sets were terminated once the mean velocity (MV) dropped below 20% of the threshold velocity or when five repetitions were completed per set; variable sets 20% velocity loss threshold (VSVL20) session comprised 25-repetitions in total, but participants performed as many repetitions in a set as possible until the 20% velocity loss threshold was exceeded. Results: When averaged across all repetitions, MV and peak velocity (PV) were significantly (p<0.05) faster during the LVP (MV: ES=1.05; PV: ES=1.12) and FSVL20 (MV: ES=0.81; PV: ES=0.98) sessions compared to PBT. Mean time under tension (TUT) and concentric TUT were significantly less during the LVP session compared to PBT. FSVL20 session had significantly less repetitions, total TUT and concentric TUT than PBT. No significant differences were found for all other measurements between any of the sessions. Conclusions: VBT permits faster velocities, avoids additional unnecessary mechanical stress but maintains similar measures of force and power output compared to strength-oriented PBT.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	** From Crossref via Jisc Publications Router. **Journal IDs: pissn 1555-0265; eissn 1555-0273
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Orthopedics and Sports Medicine : Load-Velocity Relationship, Back Squat, Load Monitoring, Training Volume, Resistance Training
Departments - Does NOT include content added after October 2018:	Health and Well-being > Department of Sport
Identification Number:	https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0147
SWORD Depositor:	Margaret Boot
Depositing User:	Margaret Boot
Date Deposited:	21 Aug 2018 15:53
Last Modified:	18 Mar 2021 07:44
URI:	https://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/22324

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads

Publication Metrics