Monitoring Training Volume Through Maximal Number of Repetitions or Velocity-Based Approach

Sánchez-Moreno, Miguel; Rendeiro-Pinho, Gonçalo; Mil‐Homens, Pedro; Pareja‐Blanco, Fernando

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2020-0214

Cited by 26 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for the MPV rep Last, these values were high (~26–38%). The values of set 1 were slightly higher than those reported in previous studies [ 10 , 32 , 33 ] and the range established for isoinertial studies [ 25 ], although the mentioned authors did not perform the measurements using optoelectronic devices. The SEM values were low, but they were also higher than those reported in the literature [ 10 , 33 ].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 60%

Reproducibility and Applicability of Traditional Strength Training Prescription Recommendations

Heredia‐Elvar

Hernández-Lougedo

Maicas-Pérez

et al. 2022

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study was to verify the reproducibility of a resistance training protocol in the bench press (BP) exercise, based on traditional recommendations, analysing the effect of the muscle fatigue of each set and of the whole exercise protocol. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, thirty male physical education students were divided into three groups according to their relative strength ratio (RSR), and they performed a 1RM BP test (T1). In the second session (T2), which was one week after T1, the participants performed a BP exercise protocol of three sets with the maximum number of repetitions (MNR) possible to muscle failure, using a relative load corresponding to 70% 1RM determined through the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) obtained from the individual load–velocity relationship, with 2 min rests between sets. Two weeks later, a third session (T3) identical to the second session (T2) was performed. The MPV of each repetition of each set and the blood lactate level after each set were calculated, and mechanical fatigue was quantified through the velocity loss percentage of the set (% loss MPV) and in a pre-post exercise test with an individual load that could be lifted at ~1 m·s−1 of MPV. Results: The number of repetitions performed in each set was significantly different (MNR for the total group of participants: set 1 = 12.50 ± 2.19 repetitions, set 2 = 6.06 ± 1.98 repetitions and set 3 = 4.20 ± 1.99 repetitions), showing high variation coefficients in each of the sets and between groups according to RSR. There were significant differences also in MPVrep Best (set 1 = 0.62 ± 0.10 m·s−1, set 2 = 0.42 ± 0.07 m·s−1, set 3 = 0.36 ± 0.10 m·s−1), which significantly reduced the % loss MPV of all sets (set 1 = 77.4%, set 2 = 64%, set 3 = 54.2%). The lactate levels increased significantly (p < 0.05) (set 1 = 4.9 mmo·L−1, set 2 = 6 mmo·L−1, set 3 = 6.5 mmo·L−1), and MPV loss at 1 m·s−1 after performing the three sets was 36% in T2 and 34% in T3, with acceptable intrasubject variability (MPV at 1 m·s−1 pre-exercise: SEM ≤ 0.09 m·s−1, CV = 9.8%; MPV at 1 m·s−1 post-exercise: SEM ≤ 0.07 m·s−1, CV = 11.7%). Conclusions: These exercise propositions are difficult to reproduce and apply. Moreover, the number of repetitions performed in each set was significantly different, which makes it difficult to define and control the intensity of the exercise. Lastly, the fatigue generated in each set could have an individual response depending on the capacity of each subject to recover from the preceding maximum effort.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 60%

Reproducibility and Applicability of Traditional Strength Training Prescription Recommendations

Heredia‐Elvar

Hernández-Lougedo

Maicas-Pérez

et al. 2022

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, significant variation existed between groups with regards to MNR (CV: 13–29%), with greater variability in the group corresponding to the lowest RSR values (CV: 29%). This finding is consistent with previously published findings [ 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. All of that discussed above leads to the conclusion that the establishment of a similar number of maximum repetitions (xRM) for a specific set of individuals, as has been done often within the literature [ 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ], would not enable intensity to be defined precisely.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…In this sense, gathered data with regards to intra-individual variability coincided with that reported in other studies [ 17 , 20 ]. This means that little intra-individual variability is seen when the MNR test is performed at two different time-points (T2 and T3).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…With regard to exercise prescription based on xRM (e.g., 8RM, and 12RM, etc. ), it is proposed that it would serve to consider, besides the aforementioned issues, potential variability between individuals at the same relative intensity level [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Such variability could invalidate the use of xRM as a means to prescribe the relative intensity of training within a group of individuals, especially when considering the significant differences found in maximum performance capacity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of the Use and Applicability of Different Variables for the Prescription of Relative Intensity in Bench Press Exercise

Maté-Muñoz

Garnacho-Castaño

Hernández-Lougedo

et al. 2022

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of the study was to analyze the use of variables such as % of one-repetition maximum (1RM) and number of maximal repetitions (xRM) with execution velocity to define and control the intensity of resistance training in bench press exercise. Hence, exercise professionals will achieve better control of training through a greater understanding of its variables. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, fifty male physical education students were divided into four groups according to their relative strength ratio (RSR) and performed a 1RM bench press test (T1). In the second test, participants performed repetitions to exhaustion (T2), using a relative load corresponding to 70% 1RM determined through the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) obtained from the individual load–velocity relationship. This same test was repeated a week later (T3). Tests were monitored according to the MPV of each repetition and blood lactate values (LACT). Results: Regarding MPV, the best (fastest) repetition of the set (MPVrep Best) values were similar between groups (0.62 m·s−1–0.64 m·s−1), with significant differences in relation to the high RSR group (p < 0.001). The average maximum number of repetitions (MNR) was 12.38 ± 2.51, with no significant differences between the RSR groups. Nonetheless, significant variation existed between groups with regards to MNR (CV: 13–29%), with greater variability in the group corresponding to the lowest RSR values (CV: 29%). The loss of velocity in the MNR test in the different groups was similar (p > 0.05). Average LACT values (5.72 mmol·L−1) showed significant differences between the Medium RSR and Very Low RSR groups. No significant differences were found (p > 0.05) between T2 and T3 with regards to MNR, MPVrep Best, or MPVrep Last, with little variability seen between participants. Conclusions: The use of variables such as the 1RM, estimated using an absolute load value, or an MNR do not allow an adequate degree of precision to prescribe and control the relative intensity of resistance training. Besides, execution velocity control can offer an adequate alternative to guarantee an accurate prescription of intensity with regard to resistance training.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the use of the n RM method for expressing the relative load is based on the common belief that if several subjects complete the same number of maximum repetitions in a set (each subject using a different absolute load) they are training with the same relative load (% 1RM). However, different studies have shown that not all subjects can perform the same number of repetitions against a certain relative load [ 7 , 59 , 60 ]. In a recent study [ 61 ] most of the individuals (56.6% of the sample) performed repetitions above those supposedly achievable (e.g., 12RM, 10RM, 8RM), underestimating the prescribed or intended load in all exercises.…”

Section: The Prescription Of Resistance Training: Control and Monitor...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a New Paradigm in Resistance Training by Means of Velocity Monitoring: A Critical and Challenging Narrative

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than a century, many concepts and several theories and principles pertaining to the goals, organization, methodology and evaluation of the effects of resistance training (RT) have been developed and discussed between coaches and scientists. This cumulative body of knowledge and practices has contributed substantially to the evolution of RT methodology. However, a detailed and rigorous examination of the existing literature reveals many inconsistencies that, unless resolved, could seriously hinder further progress in our field. The purpose of this review is to constructively expose, analyze and discuss a set of anomalies present in the current RT methodology, including: (a) the often inappropriate and misleading terminology used, (b) the need to clarify the aims of RT, (c) the very concept of maximal strength, (d) the control and monitoring of the resistance exercise dose, (e) the existing programming models and (f) the evaluation of training effects. A thorough and unbiased examination of these deficiencies could well lead to the adoption of a revised paradigm for RT. This new paradigm must guarantee a precise knowledge of the loads being applied, the effort they involve and their effects. To the best of our knowledge, currently this can only be achieved by monitoring repetition velocity during training. The main contribution of a velocity-based RT approach is that it provides the necessary information to know the actual training loads that induce a specific effect in each athlete. The correct adoption of this revised paradigm will provide coaches and strength and conditioning professionals with accurate and objective information concerning the applied load (relative load, level of effort and training effect). This knowledge is essential to make rational and informed decisions and to improve the training methodology itself.

show abstract

Monitoring Training Volume Through Maximal Number of Repetitions or Velocity-Based Approach

Cited by 26 publications

References 29 publications

Reproducibility and Applicability of Traditional Strength Training Prescription Recommendations

Reproducibility and Applicability of Traditional Strength Training Prescription Recommendations

Analysis of the Use and Applicability of Different Variables for the Prescription of Relative Intensity in Bench Press Exercise

Toward a New Paradigm in Resistance Training by Means of Velocity Monitoring: A Critical and Challenging Narrative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About