Autoregulated Resistance Training: Does Velocity-Based Training Represent the Future?

Nevin, Jonpaul

doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000471

Cited by 29 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, eight different IMU models were tested for validity. The reviewed studies were conducted using the BarSensei [ 27 , 46 ], the Gyko [ 49 ], the Myotest [ 56 , 58 , 59 , 65 , 67 , 69 ], the PUSH Band [ 23 , 24 , 48 , 54 , 64 , 66 ], the Wimu Real Track [ 6 , 60 , 62 , 68 ], the PASCO [ 61 , 70 ], and the Rehagait [ 63 ]. Four studies [ 27 , 46 , 60 , 67 ] reported a lack of validity of IMU equipment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the Myotest sensor model, the SEE values ranged between 0.01 and 26.6 m•s −1 , Pearson’s r values ranged between 0.38 and 0.92, and the R 2 values ranged between 0.59 and 0.97 [ 56 , 58 , 59 , 65 , 67 , 69 ]. For the PUSH Band sensor model, the SEE values ranged between 0.135 and 0.091 m•s −1 , Pearson’s r values ranged between 0.97 and 0.90, and the R 2 values were around 0.85 [ 6 , 23 , 24 , 48 , 64 , 66 ]. For the Wimu RealTrack Systems sensor model, the SEE values were around 0.030 m•s −1 , Pearson’s r values ranged between 0.009 and 0.60, and the R 2 values ranged between 0.95 and 0.77 [ 28 , 60 , 68 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Velocity-based training (VBT) is a resistance training method consisting of monitoring the velocity of movement displacement to support the regulation of load imposed on athletes [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Therefore, a proper measurement of bar displacement velocity is critical to implement an auto-regulation process of sports training [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Three reasons can be cited for using velocity as the main outcome [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validity and Reliability of the Inertial Measurement Unit for Barbell Velocity Assessments: A Systematic Review

Clemente

Akyıldız

Pino-Ortega

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of inertial measurement unit (IMU) has become popular in sports assessment. In the case of velocity-based training (VBT), there is a need to measure barbell velocity in each repetition. The use of IMUs may make the monitoring process easier; however, its validity and reliability should be established. Thus, this systematic review aimed to (1) identify and summarize studies that have examined the validity of wearable wireless IMUs for measuring barbell velocity and (2) identify and summarize studies that have examined the reliability of IMUs for measuring barbell velocity. A systematic review of Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From the 161 studies initially identified, 22 were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analyzed. Among the eight different IMU models, seven can be considered valid and reliable for measuring barbell velocity. The great majority of IMUs used for measuring barbell velocity in linear trajectories are valid and reliable, and thus can be used by coaches for external load monitoring.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validity and Reliability of the Inertial Measurement Unit for Barbell Velocity Assessments: A Systematic Review

Clemente

Akyıldız

Pino-Ortega

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An objective monitoring method during training sessions is velocity-based training (VBT), which has become increasingly popular due to new technology for monitoring repetition velocity (Nevin, 2019). Despite the lack of research on VBT, several models have been developed that determine the intensity based on barbell velocity during lifting and the end of the set based on a predetermined velocity decrease (Gonzalez-Badillo et al, 2011;Dorrell et al, 2019).…”

Section: Velocity-based Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autoregulation in Resistance Training for Lower Limb Tendinopathy: A Potential Method for Addressing Individual Factors, Intervention Issues, and Inadequate Outcomes

Burton

2021

Front. Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Musculoskeletal disorders, such as tendinopathy, are placing an increasing burden on society and health systems. Tendinopathy accounts for up to 30% of musculoskeletal disorders, with a high incidence in athletes and the general population. Although resistance training has shown short-term effectiveness in the treatment of lower limb tendinopathy, more comprehensive exercise protocols and progression methods are required due to poor long-term outcomes. The most common resistance training protocols are predetermined and standardized, which presents significant limitations. Current standardized protocols do not adhere to scientific resistance training principles, consider individual factors, or take the importance of individualized training into account. Resistance training programs in case of tendinopathy are currently not achieving the required intensity and dosage, leading to high recurrence rates. Therefore, better methods for individualizing and progressing resistance training are required to improve outcomes. One potential method is autoregulation, which allows individuals to progress training at their own rate, taking individual factors into account. Despite the finding of their effectiveness in increasing the strength of healthy athletes, autoregulation methods have not been investigated in case of tendinopathy. The purpose of this narrative review was 3-fold: firstly, to give an overview and a critical analysis of the individual factors involved in tendinopathy and current resistance training protocols and their limitations. Secondly, to give an overview of the history, methods, and application of autoregulation strategies both in sports performance and physiotherapy. Finally, a theoretical adaptation of a current tendinopathy resistance training protocol using autoregulation methods is presented, providing an example of how the method could be implemented in clinical practice or future research.

show abstract

“…Velocity-based training (VBT) has been proposed as an objective and accurate method to control RT variables such as intensity, volume, and level of effort by monitoring movement velocity (i.e. using bar displacement and time), and it has been reported to overcome the aforementioned limitations of other traditional approaches [18][19][20]. During an exercise set, by performing each repetition at maximal intended effort, a gradual and unintentional decrease in velocity is naturally observed as a result of increased fatigue [4,12,13,21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of different intra-set velocity loss thresholds on lower-limb adaptations to resistance training in young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Gantois¹,

Nakamura²,

Alcázar³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The level of effort seems to play a key role in determining neuromuscular adaptations; however, less is known regarding the optimal dose-response for intra-set levels of effort on chronic resistance training (RT) adaptations. Objective: We aimed to synthesize the current literature on chronic RT adaptations in response to different intra-set velocity loss (VL) thresholds in the back squat exercise. We investigated changes in muscle strength, muscular endurance, sports-related physical performance, and muscle hypertrophy outcomes during resistance exercise to establish optimal dose-response relationships in physically active individuals.Methods: We conducted a literature search using PubMed (Medline), Web of Science™, Scopus, and Cochrane up to April 2021, with no restriction on year of publication. The inclusion criteria were based on the PICO strategy. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed to determine the standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals) for different intra-set VL thresholds (low VL [< 15%], moderate VL [≥ 15% and < 30%], and high VL [≥ 30%]) in RT on maximum muscular strength, bar velocity against submaximal loads, endurance against a given load, countermovement jump height, running sprint time, and muscle hypertrophy. Results: A total of 4,031 articles were found and 11 studies met our eligibility criteria. Pooled results revealed improvements between pre- and post-training intervention in 1RM strength (SMD = 0.78; p < 0.001); bar velocity outputs (light-loads [SMD = 0.79; p < 0.001] and heavy-loads [SMD = 2.08; p < 0.001]); endurance against a given load (SMD = 1.21; p < 0.001); countermovement jump height (SMD = 0.50; p < 0.001); running sprint time (SMD = - 0.28; p = 0.001); and muscle hypertrophy (SMD = 0.31; p = 0.05), with no significant difference between VL thresholds (p > 0.05). However, low VL elicited greater within-group SMD for 1RM strength than moderate and high VL thresholds (SMD = 0.93; 0.72; and 0.75; for low, moderate, and high VL thresholds, respectively). Low and moderate VL thresholds resulted in greater within-group SMD than high VL thresholds for velocity against light loads (SMD for low VL = 0.89; moderate VL = 0.90; high VL = 0.59); countermovement jump height (SMD for low VL = 0.51; moderate VL = 0.58; high VL = 0.36); and running sprint time (SMD for low VL = -0.49; moderate VL = -0.32; high VL = -0.09). Moderate and high VL thresholds induced higher within-group SMD for muscle hypertrophy than low VL (SMD for low VL = 0.14; moderate VL = 0.40; high VL = 0.44). Conclusions: Low to moderate VL thresholds may provide more effective and efficient training stimuli for improving performance in strength-power tasks, due to the similar or even greater chronic adaptations achieved compared with high VL, despite the lower number of repetitions performed during the RT program. Conversely, moderate to high VL may provide more favorable training stimuli for inducing muscle hypertrophy. Strength coaches may apply these dose-response trends to design optimal RT stimuli based on their specific training goals. Protocol registration: The study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42020189321).

show abstract

Autoregulated Resistance Training: Does Velocity-Based Training Represent the Future?

Cited by 29 publications

References 25 publications

Validity and Reliability of the Inertial Measurement Unit for Barbell Velocity Assessments: A Systematic Review

Validity and Reliability of the Inertial Measurement Unit for Barbell Velocity Assessments: A Systematic Review

Autoregulation in Resistance Training for Lower Limb Tendinopathy: A Potential Method for Addressing Individual Factors, Intervention Issues, and Inadequate Outcomes

The effects of different intra-set velocity loss thresholds on lower-limb adaptations to resistance training in young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About