Velocity-based resistance training: do women need greater velocity loss to maximize adaptations?

Abstract

Purpose Men and women typically display different neuromuscular characteristics, force–velocity relationships, and differing strength deficit (upper vs. lower body). Thus, it is not clear how previous recommendations for training with velocity-loss resistance training based on data in men will apply to women. This study examined the inter-sex differences in neuromuscular adaptations using 20% and 40% velocity-loss protocols in back squat and bench press exercises. Methods The present study employed an 8-week intervention (2 × week) comparing 20% vs. 40% velocity-loss resistance training in the back squat and bench press exercises in young men and women (~ 26 years). Maximum strength (1-RM) and submaximal-load mean propulsive velocity (MPV) for low- and high-velocity lifts in squat and bench press, countermovement jump and vastus lateralis cross-sectional area were measured at pre-, mid-, and post-training. Surface EMG of quadriceps measured muscle activity during performance tests. Results All groups increased 1-RM strength in squat and bench press exercises, as well as MPV using submaximal loads and countermovement jump height (P < 0.05). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed, but higher magnitudes following 40% velocity loss in 1-RM (g = 0.60) and in low- (g = 1.42) and high-velocity (g = 0.98) lifts occurred in women. Training-induced improvements were accompanied by increases in surface EMG amplitude and vastus lateralis cross-sectional area. Conclusion Similar increases in strength and power performance were observed in men and women over 8 weeks of velocity-based resistance training. However, some results suggest that strength and power gains favor using 40% rather than 20% velocity loss in women.

Acute neuromuscular and hormonal responses to 20 versus 40% velocity loss in males and females before and after 8 weeks of velocity‐loss resistance training

“…This was a sub‐study of a larger 8‐week training‐intervention study that we conducted from August 2017 to December 2017, and the outcome measures from the training intervention (pre‐ vs. post‐training) have been reported previously (Rissanen et al., 2022). Figure 1 shows the study design and time line.…”

“…Study flow and time line. Outcome measures from the training intervention have been reported previously (Rissanen et al., 2022). Dropouts were attributable to illness ( n = 2), injury related to the study methods ( n = 2), injury not related to the study methods ( n = 1), lack of motivation/interest to continue ( n = 2) and undisclosed pregnancy ( n = 1).…”

“…The acute loading protocol consisted of five sets at 70% of 1-RM with 3 min recovery between sets, which lasted ∼80 min including all measurements. This loading protocol was designed to match closely the training protocol that the subjects performed in the latter part of the 8-week period and, in particular, the final week (two sessions) of training (Rissanen et al, 2022(Rissanen et al, : their table 2, p. 1271. The sets were terminated once subjects performed a repetition that reached the MPV threshold for their group (VL20% or VL40%), and the number of completed repetitions was recorded.…”

“…Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate acute neuromuscular and hormonal responses to two different velocity-loss protocols (20 and 40% velocity loss) before and after an 8-week resistance training period using the corresponding age 26 ± 4 Study flow and time line. Outcome measures from the training intervention have been reported previously(Rissanen et al, 2022). Dropouts were attributable to illness (n = 2), injury related to the study methods (n = 2), injury not related to the study methods (n = 1), lack of motivation/interest to continue (n = 2) and undisclosed pregnancy (n = 1).…”

Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

“…Since the publication of previous meta-analyses [7][8][9] on the influence of proximity-to-failure on muscle hypertrophy, six additional studies were published [11][12][13][14][15][16] on this topic. Thus, this systematic review with meta-analysis extends previous findings by including new evidence and grouping studies into broad themes exclusive to the definition of set failure applied and the research question asked (Table 1).…”