APPLIED SCIENCES

Velocity Loss as a Critical Variable Determining

the Adaptations to Strength Training
FERNANDO PAREJA-BLANCO1,2, JULIAN ALCAZAR3,4, JUAN SÁNCHEZ-VALDEPEÑAS1,
PEDRO J. CORNEJO-DAZA1, FRANCISCO PIQUERAS-SANCHIZ1, RAÚL MORA-VELA1,
MIGUEL SÁNCHEZ-MORENO5, BEATRIZ BACHERO-MENA5, MANUEL ORTEGA-BECERRA1,2,
and LUIS M. ALEGRE3,4
Downloaded from [Link] by AF/AJpzUcz43zrdlzN01XkGHeO9J2RelYBzeUgfNIpYVk6KJwhjPh95pdE7MlNRYO8sVIa4fiDa2GSWUhzfRULUW7A9oGCok on 07/15/2020

1
Physical Performance & Sports Research Center, Sports and Computers Sciences, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville,
SPAIN; 2Faculty of Sport Sciences, Department of Sports and Computers Sciences, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville,
SPAIN; 3GENUD Toledo Research Group, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, SPAIN; 4CIBER of Frailty and Healthy
Aging (CIBERFES), Madrid, SPAIN; and 5Department of Physical Education and Sports, University of Seville, Seville, SPAIN

ABSTRACT

PAREJA-BLANCO, F., J. ALCAZAR, J. SÁNCHEZ-VALDEPEÑAS, P. J. CORNEJO-DAZA, F. PIQUERAS-SANCHIZ, R. MORA-

VELA, M. SÁNCHEZ-MORENO, B. BACHERO-MENA, M. ORTEGA-BECERRA, and L. M. ALEGRE. Velocity Loss as a Critical Var-
iable Determining the Adaptations to Strength Training. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 52, No. 8, pp. 1752–1762, 2020. Purpose: This study
aimed to compare the effects of four resistance training (RT) programs with different velocity loss (VL) thresholds: 0% (VL0), 10% (VL10),
20% (VL20), and 40% (VL40) on sprint and jump performance, muscle strength, neuromuscular, muscle hypertrophy, and architectural ad-
aptations. Methods: Sixty-four young resistance-trained men were randomly assigned into four groups (VL0, VL10, VL20, and VL40) that
differed in the VL allowed in each set. Subjects followed an RT program for 8 wk (two sessions per week) using the full-squat (SQ) exercise,
with similar relative intensity (70%–85% 1-repetition maximum), number of sets (3), and interset recovery period (4 min). Before and after the
RT program, the following tests were performed: 1) muscle hypertrophy and architecture of the vastus lateralis (VLA), 2) tensiomyography,
3) 20-m running sprint, 4) vertical jump, 5) maximal voluntary isometric contraction in SQ, 6) progressive loading test in SQ, and 7) fatigue
test. Results: No between-group differences existed for RT-induced gains in sprint, jump, and strength performance despite the differ-
ences in the total volume performed by each group. VL20 and VL40 showed significant increases (P < 0.001) in muscle hypertrophy
(group–time interaction, P = 0.06). However, only VL40 exhibited a significant slowing (P < 0.001) of the delay time in the VLA muscle
(group–time interaction, P = 0.05). Moreover, VL40 showed a significant decrease in the early rate of force development (P = 0.04). Conclu-
sions: Higher VL thresholds (i.e., VL20 and VL40) maximized hypertrophic adaptations, although an excessive VL during the set (i.e., VL40)
may also induce negative neuromuscular adaptations. Therefore, moderate VL thresholds should be chosen to maximize strength adaptations
and to prevent negative neuromuscular adaptations. Key Words: RESISTANCE TRAINING, DOSE–RESPONSE, NEUROMUSCULAR
ADAPTATIONS, ARCHITECTURAL ADAPTATIONS, TENSIOMYOGRAPHY, MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY

R
esistance training (RT) is recognized as an effective velocity is a critical factor in order to induce neural and mor-
method for improving overall fitness (1). In this re- phological adaptations (2,3). Notably, the dose–response rela-
gard, the manipulation of training variables such as tionship between training volume and athletic performance
relative intensity (percent 1-repetition maximum (%1RM)), adaptations has been suggested to exhibit an inverted U-shaped
volume, exercise type and order, rest duration, and repetition curve (4–6). A recent study by Barbalho et al. (7) reported
the existence of a plateau in strength gains and muscle hyper-
trophy after a threshold volume was reached (5–10 sets per
muscle group per session). Further increases in training vol-
Address for correspondence: Fernando Pareja Blanco, Ph.D., Physical Perfor-
mance & Sports Research Center, Pablo de Olavide University, Ctra. de Utrera, ume did not yield any gains and even led to declines in perfor-
km 1, 41013 Seville, Spain; E-mail: fparbla@[Link]. mance. However, most investigations have focused on the
Submitted for publication December 2019. dose–response relationship between RT volume and RT-induced
Accepted for publication February 2020. adaptations by manipulating the number of sets (2,7–9),
0195-9131/20/5208-1752/0 whereas other alternatives remain unexplored.
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE® Among the variables that can be manipulated to configure
Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine training volume, the actual number of repetitions performed
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002295 in a set in relation to the maximal number of repetitions that

1752

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
can be completed (i.e., “level of effort”) (10) seems to be an- of the VL induced during the set: 0% (VL0) versus 10%
other variable that should be considered when designing an (VL10) versus 20% (VL20) versus 40% (VL40). Subjects per-
RT program (10–12). Exercise sets are traditionally completed formed an 8-wk progressive lower limb RT program compris-
by performing every repetition in succession until the desired ing only the full squat (SQ) exercise. The four groups trained
number of repetitions is reached (1,3). However, because the at the same %1RM in each session. Sessions were performed
number of repetitions that can be completed against a given in a research laboratory under the direct supervision of the in-
%1RM has shown a large variability between individuals vestigators, at the same time of the day (±1 h) and the same en-
(13,14), this traditional approach can lead to different levels vironmental conditions (20°C and 60% humidity) for each
of effort among individuals performing the same number of subject. Subjects were requested not to perform any other type
repetitions per set. It has been shown that the level of fatigue of strenuous physical activity during the study period. All
increases gradually as the level of effort during the set in- groups were measured on two occasions: 72 h before
creases (10). In this regard, the gradual decrease in lifting (pretraining) and 72 h after (posttraining) the 8-wk training in-
velocity across repetitions performed within a set can be tervention. A battery of tests was performed in two testing ses-
interpreted as evidence of impaired neuromuscular function, sions (separated by 48 h). The first testing session consisted of
and its assessment may provide a simple and objective means 1) ultrasound measurements of the vastus lateralis (VLA) mus-
of quantifying levels of fatigue (10). Moreover, there is a cle and 2) tensiomyography (TMG) of the VLA and vastus
strong positive relationship between the percentage of velocity medialis (VME) muscles. On the second testing session, a bat-
loss (VL) induced during the set and the percentage of repetitions tery of fitness tests was performed as follows: 1) 20-m running
that can be completed before muscle failure (R2 = 0.93–0.97) sprint, 2) vertical jump, 3) maximal voluntary isometric con-
(14). Thus, the monitoring of repetition velocity and of relative traction (MVIC) in SQ exercise, 4) progressive loading test in
VL during training provides real-time feedback on the level of ef- SQ, and 5) fatigue test in SQ. Training compliance was 100%
fort exerted in the set, with considerable accuracy. This novel of all sessions for the subjects who completed the intervention.
strategy allows for the application of a more homogeneous stim-
ulus across individuals, which might be useful in protocols aimed Subjects
at studying adaptations to different levels of fatigue during RT
Sixty-four resistance trained and physically active men
sessions, because a standardized state of fatigue is induced.
(age, 24.1 ± 4.3 yr; height, 1.75 ± 0.06 m; body mass,
A recent study (15) compared the effects of two squat train-
75.5 ± 9.7 kg) volunteered to take part in this study. All sub-
ing programs that only differed in the relative VL reached in
jects had a training background ranging from 1.5 to 4 yr
each set: 20% (VL20), leading to the completion of approxi-
(1–3 sessions per week) and were accustomed to performing
mately 50% of the possible repetitions per set, versus 40%
the SQ exercise using the correct technique. Subjects were ran-
(VL40), leading to the completion of almost 100% of the pos-
domly assigned to one of four groups, which differed only in
sible repetitions per set (i.e., very close to muscle failure). The
the magnitude of VL allowed in each training set. A participant
VL20 group achieved similar or even superior strength gains,
flow diagram is presented in Figure 1. After being informed of
especially in high-velocity actions (e.g., vertical jump), whereas
the purpose and testing procedures, subjects signed a written in-
the VL40 group experienced a higher hypertrophic response
formed consent form before participation. The present study
and a IIX-to-IIA shift in single muscle fiber phenotype,
was approved by the local research ethics committee, in ac-
whereas the VL20 group did not display reductions in the IIX
cordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. No physical lim-
fiber-type pool (15). Another study comparing a relative VL
itations, health problems, or musculoskeletal injuries that
of 15% (VL15) versus 30% (VL30) reported similar results,
could affect testing were found after a medical examination.
pointing out the superiority of VL15 in terms of RT-induced
Subjects reported to be free from taking drugs, medications,
strength and jumping gains (16). These findings may also sug-
or dietary supplements known to influence physical perfor-
gest the existence of a volume plateau, beyond which further
mance. Caffeine consumption was not permitted 12 h before
volume increases do not induce greater strength gains and can
the TMG trials.
even induce suboptimal adaptations. However, further studies
considering a wider spectrum of VL thresholds are needed.
APPLIED SCIENCES
Testing Procedures
Therefore, the main goal of the present study was to compare
the effects of four RT programs with different VL thresholds Ultrasonography. Muscle cross-sectional area (CSA)
(0%, 10%, 20%, and 40%) on sprint and jump performance, and the architecture of the VLA muscle were assessed using
muscle strength, neuromuscular, muscle hypertrophy, and ar- B-mode ultrasonography (MyLab 25; Esaote Biomedica,
chitectural adaptations. Genoa, Italy) with a 50-mm, 5- to 12-MHz linear array probe.
Resting ultrasound images were collected with the participants
MATERIALS AND METHODS lying in the supine position with the knees resting slightly
flexed at 150° (180° = full knee extension). After 15 min in
Experimental Design
the described position, VLA CSA and architecture were mea-
A longitudinal research design was used to compare the ef- sured at 50% and 60%, respectively, of the distance between
fects of four RT programs that only differed in the magnitude the superior border of the greater trochanter and the inferior

VELOCITY LOSS DURING RESISTANCE TRAINING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® 1753

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 FIGURE 1—Participant flow diagram.

border of the lateral condyle of the right leg. The extended infiltrations of fatty and connective tissues as landmarks.
field of view mode was used in the case of muscle CSA, Test–retest CV for VLA CSA was 3.8%, and CVs for muscle
whereas the alignment of the transducer in the fascicular plane architecture measures using these procedures have been previ-
was required in the case of the muscle architecture. Adhesive ously reported: 2.7% for FL and 3.6% for PA (18).
gaskets were placed on the skin at the proximal and distal Tensiomyography. The VLA and VME muscles’ contrac-
boundaries of the transverse path to be measured to facilitate tile properties were assessed by TMG (TMG-100 System
the application of the gel and the rectilinear path of the ultra- electrostimulator; TMG-BMC, Ljubljana, Slovenia) as their
sound linear array probe. The panoramic image was taken response to an electrically evoked contraction. The electric
from medial to lateral, passing carefully and at a constant stimulus was induced through two self-adhesive electrodes
velocity along the defined path, keeping the probe perpendic- (interelectrode distance, 5 cm; Dura-Stick® premium; Cefar-
ular to the surface of the skin and applying a minimal pressure Compex, Hanover, Germany), and the muscle mechanical
not to compress the tissues that will be evaluated. Three im- response was measured with a digital Dc-Dc transducer
ages were recorded at each thigh length (i.e., 50% and 60%) Trans-TekR (GK 40, Ljubljana, Slovenia) placed perpendicular
and digitally analyzed (ImageJ 1.51j8; NIH, Bethesda, MD) to the muscle belly and equidistant from the self-adhesive elec-
by the same operator, who was blinded to subject allocation. trodes at a distance of 25–30 mm. Participants remained lying
Muscle CSA (in centimeters squared) was measured by sur- in the supine position for 10 min before starting the TMG mea-
rounding the bounds (aponeuroses) of the VLA muscle surements data acquisition, and the VLA and VME were marked
APPLIED SCIENCES

(Fig. 2A). VLA pennation angle (PA) and fascicle length (FL) according to the SENIAM indications and location (19). Mea-
were measured from the visible portion of two fascicles within surements were taken with the athletes in the supine position
the same image and linear extrapolation of fibers and aponeu- and the knee joint fixed at an angle of ~140° using a wedge
roses when a portion of the fascicle extended off the field of cushion. Electrical stimulation was applied with a pulse dura-
view (Fig. 2B) (17). Two ultrasound images were assessed tion of 1 ms and an initial current amplitude of 40 mA, which
for each variable, and when a coefficient of variation (CV) was progressively increased in 10-mA steps up to the stimula-
greater than 5% was found, the third image was analyzed. tor’s maximal output (100 mA). A 10-s rest period was allowed
The average value from all the analyzed images was consid- between each electrical stimulus to avoid fatigue or posttetanic
ered for further analysis. Consistency in measurement sites activation (20). The variables assessed in this study were the
across testing days was achieved by recording probe positions maximal radial displacement of the muscle belly (Dm), con-
onto a transparent acetate and using easily identifiable traction time (Tc), and delay time (Td). Dm was defined as

1754 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE 2—Ultrasound images obtained from the VLA of a standard subject. A, The CSA is surrounded by a thick line. B, Thick lines indicate the superior
and inferior aponeuroses of the VLA muscle, dashed lines indicate the visible portions of muscle fascicles, and arched lines indicate angles formed between
the visible muscle fascicles and the inferior aponeurosis. Nonvisible portions of muscle fascicles were estimated using linear extrapolation of fibers and apo-
neuroses in order to estimate FL. Changes produced from pretraining to posttraining for each group in CSA (C), PA (D), and FL (E) of VLA obtained from
ultrasound images. Data are mean ± SD, N = 55. VL0: group that trained with a mean VL of 0% in each set (n = 14); VL10: group that trained with a
mean VL of 10% in each set (n = 14); VL20: group that trained with a mean VL of 20% in each set (n = 13); VL40: group that trained with a mean VL
of 40% in each set (n = 14). θ, PA; Δ (%), relative change from pretraining to posttraining. Intra-group significant differences from pretraining to posttraining:
*P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001. APPLIED SCIENCES

the peak amplitude in the displacement–time curve of the Running sprint and vertical jump tests. Subjects per-
tensiomyographical twitch response; Tc was obtained by deter- formed two maximal 20-m sprints on an indoor running track,
mining the time interval from 10% to 90% of Dm; and Td was separated by a 3-min rest between each sprint. Sprint times
defined as the time between the electrical stimulus and 10% of were measured using photocells (Witty; Microgate, Bolzano,
Dm (21). All measurements were carried out by the same Italy). Photocell timing gates were placed at 0, 10, and 20 m
expert technician, and only the curve with the highest Dm so that the times to cover the 0- to 10-m (T0–10), 10- to 20-m
value was considered for further analysis. Test–retest reliabil- (T10–20), and 0- to 20-m (T0–20) distances could be deter-
ity for the VME and VLA muscles, respectively, was as follows: mined. A standing start with the lead-off foot placed 1-m behind
CV = 5.5% and 5.0% for Dm, CV = 2.6% and 3.4% for Tc, the first timing gate was used. The warm-up protocol consisted
and CV = 3.1% and 3.0% for Td. of four 20-m running accelerations at 80%, 85%, 90%, 95% of

VELOCITY LOSS DURING RESISTANCE TRAINING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® 1755

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 perceived effort, and one 10-m sprint at 100% effort with 1-min using a progressive loading test in a Smith machine (Multi-
rest periods between them. The test–retest reliability (CV power Fitness Line; Peroga, Murcia, Spain) with no counter-
values) ranged from 0.7% to 1.4%. weight mechanism. The SQ was performed with subjects
In the countermovement jump (CMJ) test, subjects per- starting from the upright position with the knees and hips fully
formed five maximal CMJs with 20-s rests between each jump. extended, parallel feet and stance approximately shoulder-
Before CMJ assessment, participants warmed up by performing width apart, and the barbell resting across the back at the level
two sets of 10 squats without external load, 5 submaximal CMJs, of the acromion. Each subject descended in a continuous motion
and 3 maximal CMJs. CMJ height was calculated from flight as low as possible (~35°–40° knee flexion), then immediately
time values determined using an infrared timing system reversed motion and raised back to the upright position. Un-
(OptojumpNext; Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). After discarding like the eccentric phase that was performed at a controlled
the highest and lowest CMJ heights, the resulting average mean velocity (~0.50–0.65 m·s−1), subjects were required to
was kept for further analysis. The CV was 1.6%. always execute the concentric phase at maximal intended ve-
MVIC test. Maximal isometric force (MIF) and maximal locity. Range of movement and velocity values of all repeti-
rate of force development (RFDmax) were measured during tions were recorded at 1000 Hz with a linear velocity
an MVIC in the SQ exercise with the participants standing transducer (T-Force System; Ergotech), whose reliability has
with their knees flexed at 90° (180° = full extension). This test been reported elsewhere (10). First, the participants warmed
was performed on a Smith machine with height-adjustable up by performing six repetitions with a 20-kg load. The initial
movable supports, instrumented with an 80  80-cm dynamo- load was set at 20 kg and was progressively increased in 10-kg
metric platform (FP-500; Ergotech, Murcia, Spain). The sub- increments until the mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was
jects were instructed to push with their legs on the force ≤0.50 m·s−1. Then, the load was increased with smaller incre-
platform as fast and hard as possible after the cue “ready, ments (2.5–5.0 kg) for better adjustment. A total of 8.5 ± 1.8
set, go!” during two 5-s trials separated by 1 min of rest. Exter- increasing loads were used for each subject. Three repetitions
nal forces were collected at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz and were executed for light loads (≥1.00 m·s−1), two for medium
processed with specific software (T-Force System; Ergotech). loads (1.00–0.80 m·s−1), and one for the heaviest loads
RFDmax was calculated as the maximal slope in the force– (≤0.80 m·s−1). Interset recoveries ranged from 3 min (light
time curve in 20-ms time intervals. Moreover, the average tan- loads) to 5 min (heavy loads). Only the best repetition (i.e.,
gential slope of the force–time curve obtained over different highest MPV) with each load was considered for subsequent
time intervals (50, 100, and 150 ms from the onset of force analysis. The propulsive phase corresponds to the portion of
production, RFD0–50, RFD0–100, and RFD0–150, respectively) the concentric action during which the measured acceleration
was calculated. The average value of each variable in the is greater than acceleration due to gravity (−9.81 m·s−2) (22).
two attempts was recorded for further analysis. Test–retest re- In addition to the individual load–velocity relationship and
liability values (CV values) for the MIF and RFD values, re- the corresponding 1RM load, we reported the following: a) av-
spectively, was 4.3% and from 12.8% to 24.3%. erage MPV attained against all absolute loads common to
EMG signal acquisition. After skin preparation, surface pretraining and posttraining (AV), b) average MPV attained
EMG electrodes were placed over the VME and VLA muscles against absolute loads that were moved faster than 1 m·s−1 at
of the right leg following SENIAM recommendations (19). pretraining (AV > 1), and c) average MPV attained against
Consistency in measurement sites across testing days was absolute loads that were moved slower than 1 m·s−1 at
achieved by recording electrode positions onto a transparent pretraining (AV < 1). These variables were analyzed to exam-
acetate and using different anatomic references and skin moles ine the potential adaptations achieved in different areas of the
as landmarks. EMG signals were recorded continuously dur- load–velocity relationship.
ing MVIC testing using a parallel-bar, bipolar surface electro- Fatigue test. Five minutes after the SQ progressive load-
myographic sensor Trigno™ wireless EMG system, with an ing test, the subjects were required to complete as many repe-
interelectrode distance of 10 mm, common mode rejection ra- titions as possible with a load corresponding to 70% of 1RM
tio >80 dB, and bandwidth filter between 20 and 450 Hz ± 10% until the MPV fell below 0.50 m·s−1. The test was repeated af-
(Delsys Inc, Natick, MA). Baseline noise was <5 μV peak-to- ter the completion of the study using the same absolute load as
APPLIED SCIENCES

peak, and sampling rate was 1926 Hz. The raw data from the in the baseline examination (i.e., 70% of baseline 1RM). The
EMG were stored in digital format using EMG works Acqui- execution technique and devices used were those described
sition software (Delsys Inc). Root mean square (RMS) values for the progressive loading test. Subjects were encouraged to
were calculated to identify changes in muscle excitation levels. perform each repetition at maximal intended velocity. The
The highest RMS during each MVIC was calculated using a total number of repetitions being performed was used for
moving window of 500 ms with an overlap of 490 ms. VME further analysis.
and VLA muscle excitation values were averaged, and the av-
erage of the two MVICs was calculated for further analysis.
RT Program
The CV for the RMS signal was 9.3%.
Progressive loading test. Individual load–velocity rela- The descriptive characteristics of the RT program are pre-
tionship and 1RM load in the SQ exercise were determined sented in Table 1. The four groups trained twice a week

1756 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
TABLE 1. Descriptive characteristics of the 8-wk velocity-based squat training program performed by the four experimental groups.
Scheduled
Training Sessions
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Session 4 Session 5 Session 6 Session 7 Session 8
Set  %1RM 3  70 3  70 3  70 3  70 3  70 3  75 3  75 3  75
Session 9 Session 10 Session 11 Session 12 Session 13 Session 14 Session 15 Session 16
Set  %1RM 3  75 3  75 3  80 3  80 3  80 3  80 3  85 3  85
Actually Performed
Training Group Fastest MPV (m·s−1) Slowest MPV (m·s−1) MPV All Reps Mean VL Total Rep
VL0 0.77 ± 0.11 0.70 ± 0.12*,**,*** 0.74 ± 0.11**,*** 0 ± 0.0*,**,*** 48.0 ± 0.0*,**,***
VL10 0.76 ± 0.08 0.61 ± 0.08**,*** 0.71 ± 0.07*** 10.6 ± 0.9**,*** 143.6 ± 40.2***
VL20 0.73 ± 0.07 0.51 ± 0.06*** 0.64 ± 0.06 20.3 ± 1.5*** 168.5 ± 47.4***
VL40 0.75 ± 0.07 0.37 ± 0.05 0.58 ± 0.06 41.9 ± 1.4 305.6 ± 81.7
Training Group Average Rep per Set in All Sessions Rep per Set with 70% 1RM Rep per Set with 75% 1RM Rep per Set with 80% 1RM Rep per Set with 85% 1RM
VL0 1.0 ± 0.0*,**,*** 1.0*,**,*** 1.0*,**,*** 1.0*,**,*** 1.0*,**,***
VL10 3.0 ± 0.8*** 3.7 ± 0.9*** 3.1 ± 0.8*** 2.5 ± 0.9*** 2.2 ± 0.9***
VL20 3.5 ± 1.0*** 4.2 ± 1.2*** 3.8 ± 1.2*** 2.9 ± 0.8*** 2.3 ± 0.8***
VL40 6.4 ± 1.7 7.6 ± 2.5 7.0 ± 2.3 5.3 ± 1.5 4.3 ± 1.5
Data are mean ± SD. Only one exercise (SQ) was used in training. VL0: group that trained with a mean VL of 0% in each set (n = 14); VL10: group that trained with a mean VL of 10% in each set
(n = 14); VL20: group that trained with a mean VL of 20% in each set (n = 13); VL40: group that trained with a mean VL of 40% in each set (n = 14).
*Statistically significant differences with VL10 protocol: P < 0.05.
**Statistically significant differences with VL20 protocol: P < 0.05.
***Statistically significant differences with VL40 protocol: P < 0.05.
VL, magnitude of VL expressed as percent loss in mean repetition velocity from the fastest (usually first) to the slowest (last one) repetition of each set; Fastest MPV, average of the fastest
repetitions measured in each session (this value represents the average intensity, %1RM, achieved during the training program); Slowest MPV, average of the slowest repetitions measured
in each session; MPV all reps, average MPV attained during the entire training program; Mean VL, average VL attained during the entire training program; Total rep, total number of repetitions
performed during the training program; Average rep per set in all sessions, average number of repetitions performed in each set; Rep per set with a given %1RM, average number of repetitions
performed in each set with each of the loads used (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85% 1RM).

(training sessions being 48–72 h apart) for 8 wk with the same (0.05) and power (0.95), which resulted in a sample size of
exercise (full SQ), relative intensity (increasing from 70% to 12 subjects per group. The CV was measured to observe the
85% 1RM), number of sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min). test–retest absolute reliability. Normality and homoscedastic-
The only difference between groups was the VL threshold ity were verified with Shapiro–Wilk and Levene’s tests, re-
allowed in each set. Hence, the VL0 group performed only spectively. Data were analyzed using a 4  2 factorial
one repetition per set (0% of VL), whereas the other groups ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post hoc comparisons using one
(VL10, VL20, and VL40) stopped their sets when the corre- between-group factor (VL0 vs VL10 vs VL20 vs VL40) and
sponding VL threshold (10%, 20%, and 40% of VL, respec- one within-group factor (pretraining vs posttraining). Statistical
tively) was exceeded. All repetitions for all participants significance was established at the P ≤ 0.05 level. All statistical
during all sessions were recorded using a linear velocity trans- analyses were performed using SPSS software version 20.0
ducer (T-Force System; Ergotech). Relative loads were deter- (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).
mined from the individual load–velocity relationship obtained
from the progressive loading test in the SQ exercise for each RESULTS
subject (R2 = 0.99 ± 0.01). Therefore, for each training ses-
sion, individual loads were adjusted to ensure the correspond- Attrition and compliance. Nine subjects dropped out
ing MPV matched (±0.03 m·s−1) the prescribed %1RM. In during the course of the study; thus, the final sample was com-
addition, subjects received immediate velocity feedback while posed of 55 subjects as follows: VL0 (n = 14), VL10 (n = 14),
being encouraged to perform each repetition at maximal VL20 (n = 13), and VL40 (n = 14) (Fig. 1). Compliance was
intended velocity during each training session. A standardized 100% for all subjects. No significant differences between groups
warm-up preceded each training session: i) 5 min of jogging at were observed at pretraining for any of the variables analyzed.
a self-selected easy pace, ii) 2  10 repetitions of SQ (own Muscle CSA and architecture. RT-induced adapta-
APPLIED SCIENCES
body weight), iii) 4  6–6–4–3 repetitions of SQ (20 kg, tions in VLA muscle CSA, PA, and FL are shown in Figure 2.
40%, 50%, and 60% of 1RM, respectively), and iv) 1  2 rep- A tendency to a group–time interaction was observed for VLA
etitions of SQ at 70% of 1RM (only in sessions 6–16) plus muscle CSA (P = 0.06), with a significant time effect
1  1 repetition of SQ at 80% of 1RM (only in sessions 15–16). (P < 0.001). The VL20 and VL40 groups showed significant
improvements in muscle CSA (+7.0% and +5.3%, respec-
tively; both P < 0.001), whereas no significant changes were
Statistical Analysis
observed for VL0 and VL10 (Fig. 2C). No significant
Values are reported as mean ± SD. Sample size was calcu- group–time interactions were observed for VLA PA or FL,
lated (using GPower Version [Link]) introducing the follow- with a significant time effect for FL (P = 0.04). With regard
ing parameters: effect size index (1.05 for a 10% increase in to PA values, only the VL10 group exhibited significant
1RM based on previous data (15)); and α error probability changes in PA (+6.0%, P = 0.02; Fig. 2D), whereas FL

VELOCITY LOSS DURING RESISTANCE TRAINING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® 1757

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Data are mean ± SD, N = 55. VL0: group that trained with a mean VL of 0% in each set (n = 14); VL10: group that trained with a mean VL of 10% in each set (n = 14); VL20: group that trained with a mean VL of 20% in each set (n = 13); VL40: group that

1RM: one-repetition maximal in full squat exercise; AV: average MPV attained against all absolute loads common to Pre- and Post-training; AV < 1: average MPV attained against absolute loads that were moved slower than 1 m·s−1 at Pre-training; AV > 1:
average MPV attained against absolute loads that were moved faster than 1 m·s−1 at Pre-training; Dm: muscle displacement; MNR, maximal number of repetitions in the fatigue test; Tc: contraction time; Td: delay time; VLA: vastus lateralis muscle; VME: vastus
increased significantly only in VL20 (6.8%, P = 0.05) and

P Value Group–Time
VL40 (7.4%, P = 0.02; Fig. 2E).
Tensiomyography. A significant group–time interaction
(P = 0.05) and a main effect of time (P = 0.004) were observed

0.52
0.28
0.34
0.27
0.70

0.24
0.58

0.12
0.30

0.19
0.05
for Td in the VLA muscle (VLA-Td), although only the VL40
group exhibited a significant increase (P < 0.001; Table 2).
No significant group–time interactions were found for the rest
P Value Time Effect

of variables (Table 2). A significant main effect of time was

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.008

<0.001
0.004

also noted for VME-Dm (P = 0.008), with significant decreases

0.19

0.94
0.24
0.20

being observed only in the VL0 (P = 0.04) and VL10

(P = 0.02) groups. No significant changes were observed in
Tc, VLA-Dm, or VME-Td.
Δ (%)

5.2
17.7
10.5
5.8

12.3
3.4

17.5
−1.3
3.0

96.3
8.4

Running sprint and vertical jump tests. No sig-

nificant group–time interactions were found for any of
0.80 ± 0.09***
1.06 ± 0.13***
105.6 ± 18.5***

1.33 ± 0.08**

16.1 ± 7.5***
23.8 ± 2.6***

the variables analyzed. A significant main effect of time

5.60 ± 2.05

7.19 ± 1.60
21.8 ± 4.1

21.4 ± 3.0
21.9 ± 1.5

(P < 0.001), coupled with significant increases in CMJ height,

Post
VL40

was found in VL0 (+5.6%), VL10 (+8.0%), VL20 (+5.4%),

and VL40 (+6.1%; P < 0.001–0.01). A significant time effect
was observed for T10–20 (P < 0.001). However, no significant
0.68 ± 0.05
1.26 ± 0.09
0.96 ± 0.09
94.5 ± 17.5
4.93 ± 1.67

6.95 ± 1.79
21.6 ± 5.8

8.4 ± 2.8
22.1 ± 2.5

21.7 ± 2.6
21.3 ± 1.5
Pre

changes were detected in any group for sprint-related vari-

ables, except for T10–20 performance, which improved in
the VL10 group (−1.8%; P = 0.002).
Δ (%)

8.1
25.9
14.3
14.9
−4.6
0.3
−7.7
−1.5
−0.5
−6.9

103.8

MVIC- and EMG-derived outcomes. Figure 3 displays

the main findings regarding MVIC- and EMG-derived outcomes.
0.86 ± 0.09***
1.11 ± 0.08***
1.36 ± 0.07***
110.9 ± 19.6***

17.1 ± 7.2***

No significant group–time interactions were noted. Significant

4.95 ± 1.67

6.09 ± 1.52
21.1 ± 1.6
23.6 ± 1.4

20.4 ± 1.4
21.1 ± 1.5
Post

time effects were observed for MIF (P < 0.001), RFDmax

VL20

(P = 0.03), and RFD0–150 (P = 0.04). All groups showed sig-

nificant improvements in MIF (P < 0.001–0.05; Fig. 3A).
0.97 ± 0.05
1.26 ± 0.06
0.68 ± 0.03
5.35 ± 1.33

6.71 ± 1.73

97.8 ± 23.2

Moreover, VL0 showed significantly greater RFDmax values

8.4 ± 2.3
22.3 ± 2.6
23.6 ± 1.4

20.8 ± 2.1
21.2 ± 1.6
TABLE 2. Changes in muscle contractile properties and squat performance from pretraining to posttraining for each group.

Pre

than did VL10 at posttraining (P = 0.04; Fig. 3B), and VL40

showed significant decreases in RFD0–50 (P = 0.04; Fig. 3C).
No significant intragroup changes were observed in RFD0–100,
Δ (%)

27.3
14.3
6.6
18.1
−1.8
3.0
−0.5
−1.8
−0.9
−11.3

100.2

RFD0–150, and averaged VLA and VME muscle excitation

(RMS) values (Fig. 3D).
1.11 ± 0.09***
1.38 ± 0.09***
0.85 ± 0.09***
113.6 ± 15.6***

19.7 ± 7.9***
7.14 ± 2.28*

Individual load–velocity relationship, 1RM, and

5.57 ± 1.94
23.2 ± 1.3

21.7 ± 1.0
20.8 ± 3.0

21.5 ± 2.3
Post

fatigue. RT-induced adaptations noted in dynamic SQ per-

VL10

formance are shown in Table 2. No significant group–time

interactions were found for any variable, although significant
***Intragroup significant differences from pretraining to posttraining: P < 0.001.
0.97 ± 0.09
1.29 ± 0.06
0.67 ± 0.05
8.00 ± 2.01

96.7 ± 15.3
6.01 ± 2.85

time effects were observed for all these variables (all P < 0.001).
10.0 ± 3.2
21.3 ± 3.3
22.6 ± 1.7

21.8 ± 1.5
21.8 ± 2.0

**Intragroup significant differences from pretraining to posttraining: P < 0.01.

*Intragroup significant differences from pretraining to posttraining: P < 0.05.
Pre

1RM values increased significantly in VL0 (+13.7%), VL10

medialis muscle; (%), relative change from pretraining to posttraining.

(+18.1%), VL20 (+14.9%), and VL40 (+12.3%), as did velocity-

related outcomes obtained from the individual load–velocity rela-
Δ (%)

9.5
4.5
20.5
−2.8
1.8
2.3

3.4
−6.7

13.7

70.9
1.2

tionship (AV, AV > 1, and AV < 1; all P < 0.05). Figure 4A shows
the evolution of the RT-induced gains in 1RM values estimated
1.08 ± 0.12***

0.80 ± 0.11***
112.9 ± 19.9***
6.81 ± 1.46*

1.35 ± 0.13*

14.2 ± 6.0**
5.48 ± 1.76

trained with a mean VL of 40% in each set (n = 14).

from the individual load–velocity relationships. All four groups

APPLIED SCIENCES

21.8 ± 3.1
23.3 ± 2.1

22.1 ± 1.4
22.0 ± 2.3
Post

significantly improved with regard to the number of repetitions

VL0

performed in the fatigue test (P < 0.001–0.01).

Training program. The main kinematic characteristics of
0.67 ± 0.05
7.58 ± 1.75

99.9 ± 19.1
0.99 ± 0.11
1.30 ± 0.09
5.37 ± 1.51

9.2 ± 2.5
22.5 ± 3.4
22.9 ± 1.8

21.8 ± 2.1
21.4 ± 1.2

the RT programs are reported in Table 1. No between-group

Pre

differences were noted for the averaged fastest MPV during

each session, whereas registered relative VL differed signifi-
Squat performance

cantly among groups: 0% for VL0, 10.6% ± 0.9% for VL10,

AV > 1 (m·s−1)
AV < 1 (m·s−1)
VME-Dm (mm)
VLA-Dm (mm)
TMG parameters

VME-Td (ms)
VME-Tc (ms)
VLA-Td (ms)
VLA-Tc (ms)

20.3% ± 1.5% for VL20, and 41.9% ± 1.4% for VL40 (all
AV (m·s−1)

MNR (rep)
1RM (kg)

P < 0.05). Thus, the average MPV attained during the training
program decreased as the VL increased (P < 0.05). Moreover,
the total number of repetitions and the average number of

1758 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE 3—Changes produced from pretraining to posttraining for each group in MIF (A), RFDmax (B), rate of force development (C) from the onset of
force production to 50 ms (RFD0–50), and RMS (D) averaged from the VME and VLA. Data are mean ± SD, N = 55. VL0: group that trained with a mean VL
of 0% in each set (n = 14); VL10: group that trained with a mean VL of 10% in each set (n = 14); VL20: group that trained with a mean VL of 20% in each
set (n = 13); VL40: group that trained with a mean VL of 40% in each set (n = 14). Δ (%), relative change from pretraining to posttraining. Intragroup
significant differences from pretraining to posttraining: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Between-group significant differences (P < 0.05) with respect
to VL10: 10.

repetitions per set (total and for each %1RM) increased as rel- strength gains, whereas a high VL threshold (VL40) does
ative VL increased (P < 0.05). The total repetitions performed at not provide further strength or velocity gains. A recent review
different velocity ranges by each VL group are shown in concluded that a single set of 6–12 reps at 70%–85% 1RM to
Figure 4B. muscle failure, two to three times per week for 8–12 wk may
be the minimal training dose required to increase 1RM
strength (23). In this regard, an even lower training dose, as in-
DISCUSSION
duced by VL0, which consisted of three sets of one rep at
The main findings derived from this study comparing four 70%–85% 1RM twice a week for 8 wk produced suboptimal
RT programs differing in VL threshold induced during the yet significant increases in 1RM strength. Likewise, a previ-
set were as follows: i) no between-group differences existed ous study showed increased gains in 1RM strength derived
for RT-induced gains in sprint and jump performance, individ- from VL20 versus VL40 (18.0% vs 13.4%, respectively)
ual load–velocity relationship, MVIC, and neuromuscular ad- (15). In addition, the VL20 group showed significant gains
aptations, despite the considerable differences in the reps per in high-velocity actions (i.e., AV > 1), whereas VL40 did
set performed by each group (VL0, 1.0 ± 0.0; VL10, not (6.2% vs 1.0%, respectively) (15). However, previous
3.0 ± 0.8; VL20, 3.5 ± 1.0; VL40, 6.4 ± 1.7), and ii) higher studies on this topic only analyzed two VL thresholds
VL thresholds (i.e., VL20 and VL40) promoted an increased (15,16); thus, the dose–response relationship between
muscle hypertrophy response, although an excessive VL dur- RT-induced adaptations and the whole spectrum of relative
APPLIED SCIENCES
ing the set may also induce negative neuromuscular adapta- VLs (i.e., from no VL (0%) to muscle failure (~40%)) re-
tions (i.e., longer VLA-Td and a decrease in RFD0–50 only in mained to be investigated. Moreover, the VL10 and VL20
VL40). Therefore, our data suggest that once an upper VL groups experienced earlier significant improvements in 1RM
threshold is achieved a further increase in VL does not elicit strength (noted at sessions 2 and 3, respectively) compared
additional strength gains and may even lead to negative neuro- with the VL0 (noted at session 6) and VL40 (noted at the
muscular adaptations. end of the RT program) groups (c.f. Fig. 4), which might be
All groups showed significantly increased SQ performance of particular relevance in sport disciplines that require the
in terms of 1RM, MIF, AV, AV < 1, and AV > 1, although maintenance of a high strength performance level throughout
greater percentage changes were noted when applying mod- the entire season.
erate VL thresholds (i.e., VL10 and VL20). Thus, only one Although it has been traditionally suggested that a high
repetition per set (VL0) may not be enough to maximize number of repetitions per set during RT should be performed

VELOCITY LOSS DURING RESISTANCE TRAINING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® 1759

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 levels of effort during the set (i.e., higher VL) induce higher
mechanical and metabolic stress (10), along with greater hor-
monal responses and muscle damage (11,12), which have
been postulated as precursors of hypertrophic adaptations
(26). It is therefore conceivable that the hypertrophic response
is influenced by the level of effort attained during the set, and
in this sense, both 0% and 10% of VL seemed to be insufficient to
induce such adaptations. Moreover, the increases in muscle CSA
in the VL20 and VL40 groups were accompanied by significant
increases in FL, whereas the PA only increased significantly in
the VL10 group. A further analysis in our participants showed a
small but significant relationship (r = 0.28; P = 0.038) between
the combined changes in FL and PA and those reported in muscle
CSA. Importantly, muscle CSA and muscle architecture were
measured at different muscle sites, which coupled with possible dif-
ferences in regional muscle adaptations induced by RT (27,28), may
explain discrepancies between the sets of measures. Our find-
ings suggest that unlike changes in muscle function, structural
muscle adaptations rely on higher levels of fatigue and train-
ing volume, as supported by previous investigations (29,30).
To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess longitudi-
nal adaptations of contractile properties to systematic RT
using simple, noninvasive and selective TMG. TMG has been
FIGURE 4—A, Evolution of the 1RM strength in the squat exercise in
validated for the assessment of in vivo passive muscle contrac-
each training session expressed as a percentage of the initial pretraining tile properties in response to single-twitch stimulation (31).
level for each experimental group. 0, 10, 20, or 40 indicate the session from Based on our findings, it seems that the tested VL thresholds
which the respective group attained significant improvements (P < 0.05) in
1RM strength compared with their pretraining values. B, Number of rep-
induced different adaptive responses in contractile properties,
etitions performed in each velocity range and total number of repetition because only VL0 and VL10 showed significant decreases in
completed by each training group. Between-group significant differences VME-Dm, whereas VL40 showed a longer VLA-Td at the end
(P < 0.05): 0 for VL0, 10 for VL10, and 20 for VL20. Data are mean ± SD,
N = 55. VL0: group that trained with a mean VL of 0% in each set
of the RT program. In this regard, plyometric training has pre-
(n = 14); VL10: group that trained with a mean VL of 10% in each set viously been shown to produce decreases in Dm in both young
(n = 14); VL20: group that trained with a mean VL of 20% in each active men (32) and seniors (33), which has been interpreted as
set (n = 13); VL40: group that trained with a mean VL of 40% in each
set (n = 14).
an increase in muscle stiffness (21,34). Moreover, Pisot et al.
(34) reported an inverse relationship (r = −0.71) between
change in Dm and a decrease in muscle thickness after 35 d
to maximize gains in local muscular endurance (3,24), the four of bed rest. On the other hand, Td is recognized as a measure
training groups all significantly improved with regard to the of muscle responsiveness (21), and has been found to be lower
maximal number of repetitions achieved during the fatigue test in power athletes compared with endurance athletes and to be
(VL0, 70.9%; VL10, 100.2%; VL20, 103.8%; VL40, 96.3%), negatively associated with CMJ height (35). Furthermore, a
despite VL40 performing higher total volumes. Previous re- previous research found a positive relationship between the
search showed greater gains in localized muscular endurance proportion of myosin heavy chain I and Td (r = 0.61) (36).
(total repetitions with 75% of 1RM) in bench press after an Therefore, higher Td values may indicate negative neuromuscular
11-wk training program to failure compared with nonfailure adaptations. Likewise, VL40 showed significant impairment
training, although there were no differences in the squat exer- in the early RFD (RFD0–50), although no significant changes
cise (25), which suggests that the effects of level of effort dur- were observed for RMS during MVIC for any group. Resis-
APPLIED SCIENCES

ing the set on endurance performance may be exercise dependent. tance exercise with high VL thresholds (i.e., VL40) is charac-
Accordingly, our findings suggest that muscular endurance gains in terized by accumulated higher training volumes accompanied
SQ exercise, assessed by completing as many repetitions as possible by large impairments in force production (10,11), which induce
with 70% of 1RM until the MPV fell below 0.50 m·s−1, do not seem a reduction of IIX fiber-type percentage, whereas moderate VL
to depend exclusively on the training volume accumulated. thresholds (i.e., VL20) preserve this pool (15). In this regard, a
In contrast, it was under moderate-to-high VL values (i.e., positive relationship (r = 0.61) has been shown between the
VL20 and VL40) that significant positive adaptations in VLA changes in early RFD (<100 ms) and changes in the area per-
muscle CSA were provoked. A previous study showed that centage of IIX fiber type (37). Thus, it is suggested that mod-
both VL20 and VL40 increased quadriceps volume, but erate VL thresholds (≤20%) should be established as maximal,
VL40 training elicited greater muscle hypertrophy than did in order to avoid the negative neuromuscular adaptations ob-
VL20 (15). It has been reported that protocols with higher served in VL40.

1760 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Finally, of more functional relevance for coaches and prac- CONCLUSIONS
titioners were our results on RT-induced adaptations in CMJ
The main findings of the current study were that higher VL
and sprint performance. With regard to sprint performance, no
thresholds (i.e., VL20 and VL40) maximized hypertrophic ad-
significant changes were observed in any group for sprint-
aptations, although an excessive level of effort during the set
related variables, except for the flying phase (from 10 to
(i.e., VL40) may also induce negative neuromuscular adapta-
20 m), which improved in the VL10 group. By contrast, all
tions. Moreover, no differences between groups were ob-
groups significantly improved CMJ height; however, the lower
served for RT-induced gains in squat and jump performance,
VL threshold, the higher training efficiency, because all groups
despite the considerable differences in the total volume accu-
obtained similar CMJ improvements but accumulated substan-
mulated by each group. Therefore, setting a moderate VL
tially different total training volume. The lower VL thresholds
threshold (i.e., VL20) during RT might serve to avoid per-
seemed to be more efficient, and they do not evoke the high
forming fatiguing repetitions, which does not elicit additional
levels of discomfort and fatigue typically experienced in train-
benefits in terms of muscle strength and might evoke negative
ing routines characterized by high VL thresholds (11).
neuromuscular adaptations.
Several study limitations should be considered when inter-
preting our results. First, there was no control of energy or protein
intake during the study, which can influence RT-induced ad- PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
aptations. Second, the study was carried out in the SQ exer-
cise, and it should be noted that VL in a multijoint exercise The results of the present study contribute to improving our
such as the SQ may involve peripheral fatigue in one or more knowledge about RT design and prescription. By monitoring
muscles at different joints. Thus, the findings may not be gen- repetition velocity, a VL threshold should be chosen before-
eralizable to single joint exercise, where fatigue necessarily hand, depending on the specific training goal being pursued.
only manifests in muscles of an isolated joint. Moreover, the Moderate-to-high VL thresholds (i.e., VL20 and VL40)
findings may not be generalizable to upper limb exercises as should be used with the aim of maximizing muscle hypertro-
well. Third, no control group or control period without train- phy, although an excessive VL during the set (i.e., VL40)
ing before the start of the training intervention (e.g., −2 wk should be avoided to prevent negative neuromuscular adapta-
and week 0) was included, and as a consequence, the influence tions. Furthermore, moderate VL thresholds (i.e., VL10 and
of environmental variables cannot be ruled out. Fourth, RFD VL20) should be chosen to maximize athletic performance be-
findings should be interpreted with caution because the reli- cause VL0 seemed to induce levels of fatigue that were too low
ability values observed in RFD measurements were limited to maximize adaptations, whereas VL40 did not produce further
(CV from 12.8% to 24.3%). Lastly, various fitness tests were strength gains compared with VL10 and VL20. Therefore,
performed on day 2 (1: running sprint; 2: vertical jump; 3: moderate VL thresholds should be chosen to maximize strength
MVIC in SQ; 4: progressive loading test in SQ; and 5: fatigue adaptations and to prevent negative neuromuscular adaptations.
test in SQ), which may have induced fatigue in the subjects.
Although all groups would have been affected similarly by The results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without
this fact, it still raises the possibility that the tests themselves fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. The results
of the present study do not constitute endorsement by the American
may not be as accurate in determining the intended outcomes College of Sports Medicine. This study has no conflicts of interest to
as a result. declare. This study was not funded.

REFERENCES
1. Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Bellon CR, Stone MH. The importance of mus- 8. Ostrowski KJ, Wilson GJ, Weatherby R, Murphy PW, Lyttle AD.
cular strength: training considerations. Sports Med. 2018;48(4):765–85. The effect of weight training volume on hormonal output and muscular
2. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose–response relationship be- size and function. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11(3):148–54.
tween weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: a 9. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set vol-
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(11):1073–82. ume on strength gain: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2017;47(12):2585–601.
3. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progres- 10. Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indica- APPLIED SCIENCES
sion and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(4):674–88. tor of neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci
4. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Gorostiaga EM, Arellano R, Izquierdo M. Mod- Sports Exerc. 2011;43(9):1725–34.
erate resistance training volume produces more favorable strength 11. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Aagaard P, et al. Time course
gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. of recovery from resistance exercise with different set configurations
J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(3):689–97. [published online ahead of print July 20, 2018]. J Strength Cond Res.
5. Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Izquierdo M, Gorostiaga EM. Moderate volume doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002756.
of high relative training intensity produces greater strength gains 12. Moran-Navarro R, Perez CE, Mora-Rodriguez R, et al. Time course
compared with low and high volumes in competitive weightlifters. of recovery following resistance training leading or not to failure.
J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(1):73–81. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017;117(12):2387–99.
6. Busso T. Variable dose–response relationship between exercise 13. Richens B, Cleather DJ. The relationship between the number of rep-
training and performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(7):1188–95. etitions performed at given intensities is different in endurance and
7. Barbalho M, Coswig VS, Steele J, Fisher JP, Paoli A, Gentil P. Evi- strength trained athletes. Biol Sport. 2014;31(2):157–61.
dence for an upper threshold for resistance training volume in trained 14. Rodriguez-Rosell D, Yanez-Garcia JM, Sanchez-Medina L, Mora-
women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(3):515–22. Custodio R, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Relationship between velocity loss

VELOCITY LOSS DURING RESISTANCE TRAINING Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® 1761

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 and repetitions in reserve in the bench press and back squat exercises hormonal responses, strength, and muscle power gains. J Appl Phys-
[published online ahead of print April 25, 2019]. J Strength Cond iol. 2006;100(5):1647–56.
Res. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002881. 26. Schoenfeld BJ. The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their ap-
15. Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina L, et al. plication to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(10):
Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic perfor- 2857–72.
mance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci 27. Earp JE, Newton RU, Cormie P, Blazevich AJ. Inhomogeneous
Sports. 2017;27(7):724–35. quadriceps femoris hypertrophy in response to strength and power
16. Pareja-Blanco F, Sanchez-Medina L, Suarez-Arrones L, Gonzalez- training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015;47(11):2389–97.
Badillo JJ. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on per- 28. Mangine GT, Redd MJ, Gonzalez AM, et al. Resistance training does
formance in professional soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. not induce uniform adaptations to quadriceps. PLoS One. 2018;
2017;12(4):512–9. 13(8):e0198304.
17. Csapo R, Alegre LM, Baron R. Time kinetics of acute changes in 29. Mitchell CJ, Churchward-Venne TA, West DW, et al. Resistance ex-
muscle architecture in response to resistance exercise. J Sci Med ercise load does not determine training-mediated hypertrophic gains
Sport. 2011;14(3):270–4. in young men. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;113(1):71–7.
18. Alegre LM, Ferri-Morales A, Rodriguez-Casares R, Aguado X. Ef- 30. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Krieger J, et al. Resistance training vol-
fects of isometric training on the knee extensor moment-angle rela- ume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men.
tionship and vastus lateralis muscle architecture. Eur J Appl Physiol. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(1):94–103.
2014;114(11):2437–46. 31. Zagar T, Krizaj D. Validation of an accelerometer for determination
19. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G. Development of of muscle belly radial displacement. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2005;
recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement proce- 43(1):78–84.
dures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2000;10(5):361–74. 32. Zubac D, Simunic B. Skeletal muscle contraction time and tone de-
20. Krizaj D, Simunic B, Zagar T. Short-term repeatability of parameters crease after 8 weeks of plyometric training. J Strength Cond Res.
extracted from radial displacement of muscle belly. J Electromyogr 2017;31(6):1610–9.
Kinesiol. 2008;18(4):645–51. 33. Zubac D, Paravlic A, Koren K, Felicita U, Simunic B. Plyometric ex-
21. Macgregor LJ, Hunter AM, Orizio C, Fairweather MM, Ditroilo M. ercise improves jumping performance and skeletal muscle contractile
Assessment of skeletal muscle contractile properties by radial displace- properties in seniors. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2019;19(1):
ment: the case for tensiomyography. Sports Med. 2018;48(7):1607–20. 38–49.
22. Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Importance of 34. Pisot R, Narici MV, Simunic B, et al. Whole muscle contractile pa-
the propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med. 2010; rameters and thickness loss during 35-day bed rest. Eur J Appl Phys-
31(2):123–9. iol. 2008;104(2):409–14.
23. Androulakis-Korakakis P, Fisher JP, Steele J. The minimum effective 35. Loturco I, Gil S, Laurino CF, et al. Differences in muscle mechanical
training dose required to increase 1RM strength in resistance-trained properties between elite power and endurance athletes: a comparative
men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020;50(4): study. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(6):1723–8.
751–65. 36. Simunic B, Degens H, Rittweger J, Narici M, Mekjavic IB, Pisot
24. Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training R. Noninvasive estimation of myosin heavy chain composition in hu-
programmes to enhance muscular fitness: a review of the acute pro- man skeletal muscle. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(9):1619–25.
gramme variables. Sports Med. 2005;35(10):841–51. 37. Andersen LL, Andersen JL, Zebis MK, Aagaard P. Early and late rate
25. Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, et al. Differential effects of force development: differential adaptive responses to resistance
of strength training leading to failure versus not to failure on training? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20(1):e162–9.
APPLIED SCIENCES

1762 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine [Link]

Copyright © 2020 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.