Changes in the Force-Velocity Mechanical Profile After Short Resistance Training Programs Differing in Set Configurations

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to analyze the effect of resistance training programs differing in set configuration on mechanical force-velocity profiles. Thirteen participants performed 10 unilateral knee extension training sessions over 5 weeks. Each limb was randomized to one of the following set configurations: traditional (4 sets of 8 repetitions at maximum intended velocity, 10RM load, 3-min pause between sets) or interrepetition rest (32 maximum intended velocity repetitions, 10RM load, 17.4 s of rest between each repetition). Velocity of each repetition was recorded throughout the program. Before and after training, individual linear force velocities were calculated, and the following parameters were obtained: force and velocity axis intercept, slope, and estimated maximum power. Mean velocity was higher throughout the program for interrepetition rest configuration (0.54 ± 0.01 vs. 0.48 ± 0.01 m∙s for interrepetition rest, and traditional configuration respectively; main effect of set configuration: P < .001). There was a significant increase in force and velocity intercepts, but a steeper negative slope after both training protocols (main effect of time: P < .001 for every variable). Differences in resistance training velocity did not affect the adaptations. Our results suggest that, in a short-term program, maximum intended rather than actual velocity is a key factor to modulate strength adaptations.

Force–velocity profile during vertical jump cannot be assessed using only bodyweight jump and isometric maximal voluntary contraction tasks

“…The intercepts with force axis and velocity axis were calculated to determine the predicted force in isometric conditions (F 0 ) and maximal theoretical velocity (V 0 ), respectively. The F-v profile was calculated as the slope of the F-v linear relationship, using the following equation 25,26,35 : Finally, the theoretical maximal power (P max ) was calculated as in the previous F-V studies 23,26,35,36 , pertaining to jumping performance:…”

“…Inverse linear relationship between force/torque and linear/angular velocity has been documented for several multi-joint movements 22 . It has been shown that performing resistance exercise can alter the F-V profile 19,23 and that these changes in F-V profile depend on the type of resistance exercise 19 . It was also shown that athletes of different sports are characterized by substantially different F-V profiles 24 .…”

Cluster vs. traditional training programmes: changes in the force–velocity relationship

“…This linear approach has been previously used to describe mechanical profiles in multi-joint exercises like jumping, cycling, running or lifting in many populations (Allison, Brooke-Wavell, & Folland, 2013;Zivkovic, Djuric, Cuk, Suzovic, & Jaric, 2017). However, research about the changes in the linear F-V relationship in response to different resistance training protocols is scarce (Djuric et al, 2016;Iglesias-Soler et al, 2017;Jiménez-Reyes, Samozino, & Morin, 2019).…”

“…This study is focused on the set configuration which is defined by the repetitions performed in a set with regard to the maximum feasible number of repetitions (Iglesias-Soler et al, 2016;Mayo, Iglesias-Soler, & Fernández-Del-Olmo, 2014). In this sense, manipulating the number of repetitions contained in a set has been proven to be an effective way for inducing different types of neural and muscular adaptations (Iglesias-Soler et al, 2017;Morales-Artacho, Padial, García-Ramos, Pérez-Castilla, & Feriche, 2018;.…”

“…Thus, on the basis of their differences regarding the velocity and power performance a different adaptation in the F-V relationship can be expected between training programmes. To the best of our knowledge, few studies have explored the effects of different set structures on the F-V relationship (Iglesias-Soler et al, 2017;Morales-Artacho et al, 2018). In the study of Iglesias-Soler et al 2017, there were similar changes in the mechanical profile despite the higher training velocities maintained during the inter-repetition training protocols in comparison with a traditional set configuration during a unilateral knee extension exercise.…”