Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1RM-Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables

Banyard, Harry G.; Tufano, James J.; Delgado, Jose; Thompson, Steve; Nosaka, Kazunori

doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0147

Cited by 49 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding agrees with previous research showing that, at the cross-sectional level, prescribing training load based on individualised load-velocity profiles yielded greater MV (SMD = 1.05), similar total work, and less TUT compared with PBT during five sets of five back squats. 13 Others have also shown that limiting velocity loss during a set leads to higher MV during 6-8 weeks of back squat training in resistance-trained males 25 and professional soccer players. 26 Hence, our findings extend those of previous studies by showing that VBT enhances lowerbody training stimuli whilst minimising training stress during a competitive rugby league mesocycle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Individualised load-velocity relationships were constructed by plotting MV against load and applying a line of best fit. 13 The MVs corresponding to 60 and 80% 1RM were used to modify training load in the VBT group. At post-intervention, load-velocity relationships were constructed with the same absolute loads used in the baseline assessment.…”

Section: Individualised Load-velocity Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A threshold of ± 0.06 m•s -1 was chosen based on the measurement error in MV obtained by GYM 9 and to align with previous research. 13 Training load was modified based on the maximum MV in a set (rather than mean MV) because load-velocity relationships were constructed with the maximum value.…”

Section: Velocity-based Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whilst several VBT approaches exist, recent research has encouraged the use of individualised load-velocity relationships. [12][13][14] This method involves obtaining concentric velocity data across the loading spectrum and establishing velocity thresholds at each relative load, which are then used to modify subsequent training load. Dorrell et al 15 recently reported that six weeks of prescribing training load based on generalised velocity zones led to greater improvements in countermovement jump (CMJ) height than PBT in 16 recreationally-trained men.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Orange¹,

Metcalfe²,

Robinson³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) vs percentage-based training (PBT) on strength, speed, and jump performance in academy rugby league players during a 7-wk in-season mesocycle. Methods: A total of 27 rugby league players competing in the Super League U19s Championship were randomized to VBT (n = 12) or PBT (n = 15). Both groups completed a 7-wk resistance-training intervention (2×/wk) that involved the back squat. The PBT group used a fixed load based on a percentage of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM), whereas the VBT group used a modifiable load based on individualized velocity thresholds. Biomechanical and perceptual data were collected during each training session. Back-squat 1-RM, countermovement jump, reactive strength index, sprint times, and back-squat velocity at 40–90% 1-RM were assessed pretraining and posttraining. Results: The PBT group showed likely to most likely improvements in 1-RM strength and reactive strength index, whereas the VBT group showed likely to very likely improvements in 1-RM strength, countermovement jump height, and back-squat velocity at 40% and 60% 1-RM. Sessional velocity and power were most likely greater during VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean differences = 1.8–2.4), while time under tension and perceptual training stress were likely lower (standardized mean differences = 0.49–0.66). The improvement in back-squat velocity at 60% 1-RM was likely greater following VBT compared with PBT (standardized mean difference = 0.50). Conclusion: VBT can be implemented during the competitive season, instead of traditional PBT, to improve training stimuli, decrease training stress, and promote velocity-specific adaptations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Individualised Load-velocity Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Velocity-based Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Orange¹,

Metcalfe²,

Robinson³

et al. 2020

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baseline values are established using load-velocity profiles (LVP) which determine individualised velocities for specific relative loads. [10][11][12] The relationship between load and velocity is vital in understanding the influence of fatigue during VBT. Importantly, when maximal effort is given for the concentric phase of an exercise, an inverse linear relationship exists between movement velocity and load.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readiness to train: Return to baseline strength and velocity following strength or power training

Vernon

Joyce

Banyard

2020

International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the return to baseline of movement velocity and maximal strength following a strength-orientated and power-orientated session in the free-weight back squat performed with maximal concentric velocity. Fourteen strength-trained males completed a strength-orientated session (5-sets of 5-repetitions @80% of a one-repetition maximum [1RM]) and a power-orientated session (3-sets of 6-repetitions @50%1RM) in a randomised order over two weeks (e.g. strength week-1, power week-2). The back-squat was then performed with loads of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 90% and 100%1RM at 24, 48, 72 and 96hours following the strength and power exercise sessions to assess return to baseline of squat velocity and maximal strength. Dependent variables included 1RM, back squat mean velocity (MV) and peak velocity (PV), and countermovement jump peak velocity (CMJ-PV). Meaningful changes ([ES] ≥-0.60) were reported for MV and PV at loads ≥ 60%1RM at 24 and 48-hours after the strength-orientated session. Trivial to small (ES ≤-0.59) differences were reported for squat velocities following the power-orientated session. Only trivial to small ES differences were observed for CMJ-PV, and 1RM at all time points following both sessions. Squat velocity (MV and PV) across the load velocity profile (LVP) had recovered at 72 hours following the strength-orientated session. However, the return to baseline of squat velocity (MV and PV) did not coincide with the return to baseline of 1RM or CMJ-PV. Therefore, measuring and monitoring meaningful changes in velocity may be a more valid and practical alternative in determining full recovery and readiness to train.

show abstract

Offseason Workout Recommendations for Baseball Players

Klein

Cobian

Simmons

et al. 2021

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1RM-Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables

Abstract: VBT permits faster velocities, avoids additional unnecessary mechanical stress but maintains similar measures of force and power output compared to strength-oriented PBT.

Cited by 49 publications

References 21 publications

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Effects of In-Season Velocity- Versus Percentage-Based Training in Academy Rugby League Players

Readiness to train: Return to baseline strength and velocity following strength or power training

Offseason Workout Recommendations for Baseball Players

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About