Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method by which training variables are manipulated based on kinematic outcomes, e.g., barbell velocity. The better precision for monitoring and manipulating training variables ascribed to VBT assumes that velocity is measured and communicated correctly. This study assessed the validity of several mobile and one stationary VBT device for measuring mean and peak concentric barbell velocity over a range of velocities and exercises, including low- and high-velocity, ballistic and non-ballistic, and plyometric and non-plyometric movements, and to quantify the isolated effect of device attachment point on measurement validity. GymAware (r = 0.90–1, standard error of the estimate, SEE = 0.01–0.08 m/s) and Quantum (r = 0.88–1, SEE = 0.01–0.18 m/s) were most valid for mean and peak velocity, with Vmaxpro (r = 0.92–0.99, SEE = 0.02–0.13 m/s) close behind. Push (r = 0.69–0.96, SEE = 0.03–0.17 m/s) and Flex (r = 0.60–0.94, SEE = 0.02–0.19 m/s) showed poorer validity (especially for higher-velocity exercises), although typical errors for mean velocity in exercises other than hang power snatch were acceptable. Effects of device placement were detectable, yet likely small enough (SEE < 0.1 m/s) to be negligible in training settings.

Two methods for challenging the musculoskeletal and nervous systems to better exploit the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) mechanism during plyometric training are reactive strength exercises and accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Combining repetitive, reactive jumping with AEL poses a novel approach, in which the effects of both methods may be combined to elicit a unique stimulus. This study compared kinematic, kinetic, and electromyographic variables between a control (CON1) and two AEL conditions (AEL2 and AEL3). Additionally, non-reactive and reactive jumps performed within these sets were compared. Participants performed two sets of six countermovement jumps (CMJ) under each loading condition. AEL3 had moderate to large positive effects (es) on peak and mean eccentric force (es = 1.1, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), and eccentric loading rate (es = 0.8, p < 0.01), but no effect on concentric variables or muscle activation intensity. The effects of AEL2 were similar but smaller. With or without AEL, there were moderate to large positive effects associated with reactive CMJ (second jump in a set, compared to the first) on peak and mean eccentric velocity (es = 1.7, 0.8, respectively; both p < 0.01), peak and mean eccentric force (es = 1.3, 1.2, p < 0.01), eccentric loading rate (es = 1.3, p < 0.01) and muscle activity (es = 1.8–1.9, p < 0.01). Concentric variables did not differ. Thus, the flight phase and act of landing during reactive jumps elicited greater increases in eccentric forces, loading rates, and muscle activity than AEL. Nonetheless, kinetic variables were greatest when AEL was combined with reactive jumping. Considering the limitations or complexity associated with most AEL protocols, sets of repetitive (reactive) CMJ may be more pragmatic for augmenting eccentric kinetic variables and neuromuscular stimuli during training.

No abstract

We are glad to introduce the Journal Club of Volume Five, fourth Issue. This edition is focused on relevant studies published in the last few years in the field of corrective exercise, chosen by our Editorial Board members and their colleagues. We hope to stimulate your curiosity in this field and to share a passion for sport with you, seen also from the scientific point of view. The Editorial Board members wish you an inspiring lecture.

We are glad to introduce the Second Journal Club of Volume Five, Second Issue. This edition is focused on relevant studies published in the last few years in the field of resistance training, chosen by our Editorial Board members and their colleagues. We hope to stimulate your curiosity in this field and to share with you the passion for the sport, seen also from the scientific point of view. The Editorial Board members wish you an inspiring lecture.