Movement Velocity as a Determinant of Actual Intensity in Resistance Exercise

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze the acute mechanical, metabolic and EMG response to five resistance exercise protocols (REP) in the full squat (SQ) exercise performed with 2 velocity conditions: maximal intended velocity (MaxV) vs. half-maximal velocity (HalfV). Eleven resistance-trained men performed 10 REP (5 with each velocity conditions) in random order (72-96 h apart). The REP consisted of 3 sets of 8-3 repetitions against 45-65% 1RM. The percent change in countermovement jump (CMJ) height, velocity attained with the load that elicited a ~1.00 m·s-1 (V1-load), surface EMG variables and blood lactate concentration were assessed pre- vs. post-exercise protocols. MaxV resulted in greater percent changes (Δ: 12-25%) and intra-condition effect sizes (ES: 0.76-4.84) in loss of V1-load and CMJ height compared to HalfV (Δ: 10-16%; ES: 0.65-3.90) following all REP. In addition, MaxV showed higher post-exercise lactate concentration than HalfV (ES: 0.46-0.83; p<0.05). For EMG variables, only the Dimitrov index resulted in relevant changes after each REP, with MaxV showing greater magnitude of changes (23-38%) than HalfV (12-25%) across all REP. These results suggest that voluntary movement velocity is a key aspect to consider since it clearly determines the overall training intensity during resistance exercise.

Maximal and submaximal intended velocity squat sets: Do they selectively impact mechanical performance in paired multijoint upper‐body exercise sets?

“…Lifting with maximal intent (i.e., as fast and as explosive as possible) has proven effective in enhancing strength, power, and velocity outputs (García et al., 2022; González‐Badillo et al., 2014; Pareja‐Blanco et al., 2014) making it a valuable approach for optimizing athletic performance gains (Weakley, Mann, et al., 2021). González‐Badillo et al.…”

“…However, an unexplored question pertains to the impact of the intended lifting velocity during sets of a lower‐body exercise on mechanical performance in PS of upper‐body exercises. This question gains significance as training at maximal intended velocity has been linked to superior improvements in athletic performance (González‐Badillo et al., 2014; Pareja‐Blanco et al., 2014), but it promotes greater mechanical and metabolic stress than deliberately lifting at slower velocities (García et al., 2022; Pareja‐Blanco et al., 2014). Therefore, more research is warranted to assess the influence of intended lifting velocity (maximal or submaximal) on mechanical performance during PS schemes.…”

Effectiveness of either short-duration ischemic pre-conditioning, single-set high-resistance exercise, or their combination in potentiating bench press exercise performance

“…Subsequently, the participants performed a specific warm-up which included: a) a set of 8 repetitions at 50% of the load that followed (either 60% 1-RM in IPC condition or 90% 1-RM in the PAPE and combined IPC + PAPE conditions) and b) a set of five repetitions at 75% of the load that followed, with 3 min rest intervals between the sets. Warm-up sets with the submaximal loads were performed with a controlled movement velocity in order to limit the development of PAPE and neuromuscular fatigue ( Rahimi, 2007 ; García et al, 2022 ).…”

Toward a New Paradigm in Resistance Training by Means of Velocity Monitoring: A Critical and Challenging Narrative

“…It is pertinent to note that when using movement velocity for the regulation of the training load, as well as for assessing the training effect, it is necessary to comply with an essential requirement: each repetition must be lifted at maximal intended or voluntary velocity [5,42,52,65]. This condition, in addition to being necessary for monitoring the main RT variables (i.e., relative load and training volume), has been shown to induce greater strength gains and improvements in jump and sprint performance than performing repetitions deliberately more slowly [21,22,149,150]. The main contributions of the use of movement velocity to improve the RT methodology are next briefly described.…”