Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum

García-Ramos, Amador; Janićijević, Danica; González-Hernández, Jorge M; Keogh, Justin W L; Weakley, Jonathon

doi:10.7717/peerj.8760

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the daily training load can be matched to the previously programmed intensity, since it is acknowledged that each %1RM corresponds to a specific mean concentric velocity. This finding has been reported and used in several studies that achieved similar results, although some studies propose individualizing the load-velocity relationship for each subject ( González-Badillo & Sánchez-Medina, 2010 ; Sánchez-Medina et al, 2017 ; García-Ramos et al, 2019 ; García-Ramos & Janicijevic, 2020 ). In this sense, VBT differs from traditional approaches by modifying training load variables to match the pre-programmed ones prior to a given training session, rather than assigning them based on a 1RM pre-test.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming

Jiménez-Reyes

Castaño-Zambudio

Cuadrado-Peñafiel

et al. 2021

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strength and conditioning specialists commonly deal with the quantification and selection the setting of protocols regarding resistance training intensities. Although the one repetition maximum (1RM) method has been widely used to prescribe exercise intensity, the velocity-based training (VBT) method may enable a more optimal tool for better monitoring and planning of resistance training (RT) programs. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of two RT programs only differing in the training load prescription strategy (adjusting or not daily via VBT) with loads from 50 to 80% 1RM on 1RM, countermovement (CMJ) and sprint. Twenty-four male students with previous experience in RT were randomly assigned to two groups: adjusted loads (AL) (n = 13) and non-adjusted loads (NAL) (n = 11) and carried out an 8-week (16 sessions) RT program. The performance assessment pre- and post-training program included estimated 1RM and full load-velocity profile in the squat exercise; countermovement jump (CMJ); and 20-m sprint (T20). Relative intensity (RI) and mean propulsive velocity attained during each training session (Vsession) was monitored. Subjects in the NAL group trained at a significantly faster Vsession than those in AL (p < 0.001) (0.88–0.91 vs. 0.67–0.68 m/s, with a ∼15% RM gap between groups for the last sessions), and did not achieve the maximum programmed intensity (80% RM). Significant differences were detected in sessions 3–4, showing differences between programmed and performed Vsession and lower RI and velocity loss (VL) for the NAL compared to the AL group (p < 0.05). Although both groups improved 1RM, CMJ and T20, NAL experienced greater and significant changes than AL (28.90 vs.12.70%, 16.10 vs. 7.90% and −1.99 vs. −0.95%, respectively). Load adjustment based on movement velocity is a useful way to control for highly individualised responses to training and improve the implementation of RT programs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming

Jiménez-Reyes

Castaño-Zambudio

Cuadrado-Peñafiel

et al. 2021

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these three devices, the Push 2.0 may have the greatest accuracy. However, it should be acknowledged that mean velocity from this device has been questioned [29], which limits its application to resistance training as this metric is widely recommended for use during non-ballistic exercises [12,64,65]. Finally, of the non-linear transducer and accelerometer devices, it appears that smart phone and tablet apps may be an alternative for a quick 'snap-shot' of training intensity, but substantial inter-device error may exist.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To circumvent these issues and support the accurate quantification of resistance training loads, a range of tools that assess kinetic and kinematic outputs have been developed [8][9][10][11]. By monitoring kinetic and kinematic outputs, changes in fatigue and proximity to concentric muscle failure can be closely monitored [6,12,13]. Furthermore, these devices have been used for a number of training purposes ranging from the immediate feedback of velocity and power outputs [14][15][16][17], to supporting full autoregulatory prescriptive methods [18,19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Monitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices. Objective A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises. Results A total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review. Conclusion Most of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

show abstract

“…A possible solution for basketball researchers and practitioners to gather strength data from their players is to use a linear position transducer (LPT) during resistance training sessions to measure kinetic and kinematic outputs [36,171]. The use of an LPT during strength training can provide valid and reliable performance data [172], which is able to be tracked over time to monitor player progression (e.g., changes in bar speed at a specified load) [171,173], and used to predict maximal strength whilst inducing minimal fatigue [171,174,175]. Only one study [121] reported bench press 1RM relative to playing position in adult male basketball players.…”

Section: Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As basketball match-play requires players to possess a wide range of physical characteristics, many tests have been introduced in the literature to identify talent and quantify fitness in various samples of players. However, a synthesis of the literature to identify the most frequently used tests, outcome variables, and normative values for basketball-related physical characteristics in adult male basketball players is yet to be conducted. Objective The primary objectives of this systematic review are to (1) identify tests and outcome variables used to assess physical characteristics in adult male basketball players across all competition levels, (2) report a summary of anthropometric, muscular power, linear speed, change-of-direction speed, agility, strength, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity in adult male basketball players based on playing position and competition level, and (3) introduce a framework outlining recommended testing approaches to quantify physical characteristics in adult male basketball players. Methods A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify relevant studies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies were required to: (1) be original research articles; (2) be published in a peer-reviewed journal; (3) have full-text versions available in the English language; and (4) include the primary aim of reporting tests used and/or the physical characteristics of adult (i.e., ≥ 18 years of age) male basketball players. Additionally, data from the top 10 draft picks who participated in the National Basketball Association combined from 2011–12 to 2020–21 were extracted from the official league website to highlight the physical characteristics of elite 19- to 24-year-old basketball players. Results A total of 1684 studies were identified, with 375 being duplicates. Consequently, the titles and abstracts of 1309 studies were screened and 231 studies were eligible for full-text review. The reference list of each study was searched, with a further 59 studies identified as eligible for review. After full-text screening, 137 studies identified tests, while 114 studies reported physical characteristics in adult male basketball players. Conclusions Physical characteristics reported indicate a wide range of abilities are present across playing competitions. The tests and outcome variables reported in the literature highlight the multitude of tests currently being used. Because there are no accepted international standards for physical assessment of basketball players, establishing normative data is challenging. Therefore, future testing should involve repeatable protocols that are standardised and provide outcomes that can be monitored across time. Recommendations for testing batteries in adult male basketball players are provided so improved interpretation of data can occur. Clinical Trial Registration This review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and allocated registration number CRD42020187151 on 28 April, 2020.

show abstract

Reliability of the velocity achieved during the last repetition of sets to failure and its association with the velocity of the 1-repetition maximum

Cited by 18 publications

References 21 publications

Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming

Differences between adjusted vs. non-adjusted loads in velocity-based training: consequences for strength training control and programming

The Validity and Reliability of Commercially Available Resistance Training Monitoring Devices: A Systematic Review

A Systematic Review on Fitness Testing in Adult Male Basketball Players: Tests Adopted, Characteristics Reported and Recommendations for Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About