Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set

Pareja‐Blanco, Fernando; Villalba-Fernández, Antonio; Cornejo-Daza, Pedro J.; Sánchez-Valdepeñas, Juan; González-Badillo, Juan José

doi:10.3390/sports7030059

Cited by 39 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is very relevant for those athletes who are required to attain high strength levels during the entire season, with competitions every weekend or even every 3‐4 days. It has been shown that RT protocols with large VL thresholds require longer recovery times (up to 48 hours post‐exercise), whereas low VL thresholds show faster rates of recovery 30,31 . Therefore, including RT protocols with lower VL thresholds during in‐season periods with congested calendars could produce significant strength adaptations while maximizing recovery, compared with higher VL thresholds that may be detrimental to muscle recovery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy

Pareja‐Blanco

Alcázar

Cornejo-Daza

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the effects of four velocity-based training (VBT) programs in bench press (BP) between a wide range of velocity loss (VL) thresholds-0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50)-on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy. Methods: Sixty-four resistance-trained young men were randomly assigned into four groups (VL0, VL15, VL25, and VL50) that differed in the VL allowed in each set. Subjects followed a VBT program for 8-weeks using the BP exercise. Before and after the VBT program the following tests were performed: (a) cross-sectional area (CSA) measurements of pectoralis major (PM) muscle; (b) maximal isometric test; (c) progressive loading test; and (d) fatigue test. Results: Significant group x time interactions were observed for CSA (P < .01) and peak root mean square in PM (peak RMS-PM, P < .05). VL50 showed significantly greater gains in CSA than VL0 (P < .05). Only the VL15 group showed significant increases in peak RMS-PM (P < .01). Moreover, only VL0 showed significant gains in the early rate of force development (RFD, P = .05), while VL25 and VL50 improved in the late RFD (P ≤ .01-.05). No significant group × time interactions were found for any of the dynamic strength variables analyzed, although all groups showed significant improvements in all these parameters. Conclusion: Higher VL thresholds allowed for a greater volume load which maximized muscle hypertrophy, whereas lower VL thresholds evoked positive neuromuscular-related adaptations. No significant differences were found between groups for strength gains, despite the wide differences in the total volume accumulated by each group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy

Pareja‐Blanco

Alcázar

Cornejo-Daza

et al. 2020

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the great interest in new resistance training approaches such as VBT (Courel-Ibáñez et al, 2019;Pareja-Blanco et al, 2019;Pérez-Castilla et al, 2019a;Weakley et al, 2020a), there is limited scientific data measuring the real effort applied in each training session (by monitoring movement velocity). This study presented the novelty of assessing VL of a daily adjustment of training loads based on velocity, to match the relative programmed intensity (for the AL group) or using previously determined absolute loads corresponding to the programmed RI without modifying loads daily (for the NAL group) in two RT programs identical with regard to volume (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

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

“…when velocity of movement dropped to 70% of the peak attained. A recent similar study (Pareja-Blanco et al, 2019) compared four different protocols in terms of load (60 and 80%) and velocity loss (20 and 40%) in the squat exercise and measured the countermovement vertical jump, 20m sprint time and movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s-1 velocity, before and 10 s, 6 h, 24 h and 48 h later. Those authors observed that a larger exercise volume load, resulting from a greater velocity loss (by 40%) and the lower load of 60% of 1RM resulted not only in greater acute fatigue, but also in decreased vertical jump performance 6 and 24 h later.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postactivation Potentiation of Bench Press Throw Performance Using Velocity-Based Conditioning Protocols with Low and Moderate Loads

Τσούκος

Brown

Veligekas

et al. 2019

Journal of Human Kinetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the acute effects of the bench press exercise with low and moderate loads as well as with two predetermined movement velocity loss percentages on bench press throw performance and surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity. Ten trained men completed 5 main trials in randomized and counterbalanced order one week apart. Mean propulsive velocity (MPV), peak velocity (PV) and sEMG activity of prime movers were evaluated before and periodically for 12 minutes of recovery under five conditions: using loads of 40 or 60% of 1 RM, until mean velocity dropped to 90 or 70%, as well as a control condition (CTRL). MPV and PV were increased 4-12 min into recovery by 4.5-6.8% only after the 60%1RM condition during which velocity dropped to 90% and total exercise volume was the lowest of all conditions (p < 0.01, Hedges’ g = 0.8-1.7). When peak individual responses were calculated irrespective of time, MPV was increased by 9.2 ± 4.4 (p < 0.001, Hedges’ g = 1.0) and 6.1 ± 3.6% (p < 0.001, Hedges’ g = 0.7) under the two conditions with the lowest total exercise volume irrespective of the load, i.e. under the conditions of 40 and 60% 1RM where velocity was allowed to drop to 90%. sEMG activity of the triceps was significantly greater when peak individual responses were taken into account only under the 60%1RM condition when velocity dropped to 90% (p < 0.05, Hedges’ g = 0.4). This study showed that potentiation may be maximized by taking into account individual fatigue profiles using velocity-based training.

show abstract

Time Course of Recovery Following Resistance Exercise with Different Loading Magnitudes and Velocity Loss in the Set

Cited by 39 publications

References 27 publications

Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy

Effects of velocity loss in the bench press exercise on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy

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

Postactivation Potentiation of Bench Press Throw Performance Using Velocity-Based Conditioning Protocols with Low and Moderate Loads

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About