The results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the American College of Sports Medicine. This study has no conflicts of interest to declare.

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.

The aim of this study was to compare the time course of recovery following four different resistance exercise protocols in terms of loading magnitude (60% vs. 80% 1RM—one-repetition maximum) and velocity loss in the set (20% vs. 40%). Seventeen males performed four different protocols in full squat exercise, which were as follows: (1) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (60-20), (2) 60% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (60-40), (3) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 20% (80-20), and (4) 80% 1RM with a velocity loss of 40% (80-40). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s−1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load), countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time at 20 m (T20) were assessed at Pre, Post, 6 h-Post, 24 h-Post, and 48 h-Post. Impairments in V1-load were significantly higher for 60-40 than other protocols at Post (p < 0.05). The 60-20 and 80-40 protocols exhibited significant performance impairments for V1-load at 6 h-Post and 24 h-Post, respectively (p < 0.05). CMJ height remained decreased for 60-20 and 60-40 until 24 h-Post (p < 0.001–0.05). Regarding T20, the 80-40 protocol resulted in higher performance than 60-40 at 24 h-Post and the 80-20 protocol induced a greater performance than 60-40 protocol at 48 h-Post (p < 0.05). A higher velocity loss during the set (40%) and a lower relative load (60% 1RM) resulted in greater fatigue and slower rate of recovery than lower velocity loss (20%) and higher relative load (80% 1RM).

Piqueras-Sanchiz, F, Cornejo-Daza, PJ, Sánchez-Valdepeñas, J, Bachero-Mena, B, Sánchez-Moreno, M, Martín-Rodríguez, S, García-García, Ó, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Acute mechanical, neuromuscular, and metabolic responses to different set configurations in resistance training. J Strength Cond Res 36(11): 2983–2991, 2022—The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of set configuration on mechanical performance, neuromuscular activity, metabolic response, and muscle contractile properties. Sixteen strength-trained men performed 2 training sessions in the squat exercise consisting of (a) 3 sets of 8 repetitions with 5 minutes rest between sets (3 × 8) and (b) 6 sets of 4 repetitions with 2 minutes rest between sets (6 × 4). Training intensity (75% one repetition maximum), total volume (24 repetitions), total rest (10 minutes), and training density were equalized between protocols. A battery of tests was performed before and after each protocol: (a) tensiomyography (TMG), (b) blood lactate and ammonia concentration, (c) countermovement jump, and (d) maximal voluntary isometric contraction in the squat exercise. Force, velocity, and power output values, along with electromyography data, were recorded for every repetition throughout each protocol. The 6 × 4 protocol resulted in greater mechanical performance (i.e., force, velocity, and power) and lower neuromuscular markers of fatigue (i.e., lower root mean square and higher median frequency) during the exercise compared with 3 × 8, particularly for the last repetitions of each set. The 3 × 8 protocol induced greater lactate and ammonia concentrations, greater reductions in jump height, and greater impairments in TMG-derived velocity of deformation after exercise than 6 × 4. Therefore, implementing lower-repetition sets with shorter and more frequent interset rest intervals attenuates impairments in mechanical performance, especially in the final repetitions of each set. These effects may be mediated by lower neuromuscular alterations, reduced metabolic stress, and better maintained muscle contractile properties.

No abstract