These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1RM-Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables.
    Author: Banyard HG, Tufano JJ, Delgado J, Thompson SW, Nosaka K.
    Journal: Int J Sports Physiol Perform; 2019 Feb 01; 14(2):246-255. PubMed ID: 30080424.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare kinetic and kinematic data from 3 different velocity-based training 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 4 randomized resistance-training sessions 96 h apart: PBT session involved 5 sets of 5 repetitions using 80% 1RM; load-velocity profile (LVP) session contained 5 sets of 5 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 consisted of 5 sets at 80% 1RM, but sets were terminated once the mean velocity (MV) dropped below 20% of the threshold velocity or when 5 repetitions were completed per set; and variable sets 20% velocity loss threshold 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 < .05) faster during the LVP (MV effect size [ES] = 1.05; PV ES = 1.12) and FSVL20 (MV ES = 0.81; PV ES = 0.98) sessions compared with PBT. Mean time under tension (TUT) and concentric TUT were significantly less during the LVP sessions compared with PBT. The FSVL20 sessions 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: Velocity-based training permits faster velocities and avoids additional unnecessary mechanical stress but maintains similar measures of force and power output compared with strength-oriented PBT in a single training session.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]