Accepted Manuscript online: 2022-04-25 Article published online: 2022-07-22

Training & Testing Thieme

Movement Velocity as a Determinant of Actual Intensity in

Resistance Exercise

Authors
Juan Manuel Yáñez García1 , Ricardo Mora-Custodio1, Juan Ribas-Serna2, 3, Juan José González-Badillo1, 3,
David Rodríguez-Rosell1, 3

Affiliations Abs trac t

1 Department os Sport and Informatic, Universidad Pablo This study aimed to analyze the acute mechanical, metabolic

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
de Olavide, Seville, Spain and EMG response to five resistance exercise protocols (REP) in
2 Department of Medical Physiology and Biophysics, the full squat (SQ) exercise performed with two velocity condi-
Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain tions: maximal intended velocity (MaxV) vs. half-maximal ve-
3 Research, development and innovation (R&D+i) Area, locity (HalfV). Eleven resistance-trained men performed 10 REP
Investigation in Medicine and Sport department, Sevilla (5 with each velocity conditions) in random order (72–96 h
Football Club, Seville, Spain apart). The REP consisted of three sets of 8–3 repetitions
against 45–65 % 1RM. The percent change in countermove-
Key words ment jump (CMJ) height, velocity attained with the load that
maximal intended velocity, resistance training, degree of elicited a ~1.00 m · s − 1 (V1-load), surface EMG variables and
fatigue, metabolic stress, neural response blood lactate concentration were assessed pre- vs. post-exer-
cise protocols. MaxV resulted in greater percent changes (Δ:
accepted 20.04.2022 12–25 %) and intra-condition effect sizes (ES: 0.76–4.84) in loss
published online 25.04.2022 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
Bibliography post-exercise lactate concentration than HalfV (ES: 0.46–0.83;
Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 p < 0.05). For EMG variables, only the Dimitrov index resulted
DOI 10.1055/a-1834-6693 in relevant changes after each REP, with MaxV showing greater
ISSN 0172-4622 magnitude of changes (23–38 %) than HalfV (12–25 %) across
© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved. all REP. These results suggest that voluntary movement veloc-
Georg Thieme Verlag, Rüdigerstraße 14, ity is a key aspect to consider since it clearly determines the
70469 Stuttgart, Germany overall training intensity during resistance exercise.

Correspondence
Mr. David Rodríguez-Rosell
Department os Sport and Informatic
Universidad Pablo de Olavide
Ctra. de Utrera, km 1
41013 Seville
Spain
Tel.: 34 622467840, Fax: 34 954349238
[email protected]

Introduction [2, 3]. However, the effects of voluntarily manipulating movement

Manipulation of the acute exercise variables determines the type velocity have been much less studied to date, despite the impor-
and magnitude of the stimuli faced during resistance training (RT) tance recently placed on this variable in relation to specific adapta-
and, consequently, the neuromuscular response [1]. The acute and tions consequent to RT [4–6]. An analysis of the mechanical and
chronic effects of manipulating different RT variables (e. g. volume, metabolic responses to different resistance exercise protocols
relative load, rest periods, type and order of exercises, and training (REP), in which movement velocity is considered as the independ-
frequency) have been widely studied in the scientific literature ent variable, can provide further insight into the mechanisms

García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved. 1033
 Training & Testing Thieme

­ nderlying the adaptations that may occur following a training pe-

u chanical indicators of muscle fatigue, while post-exercise blood
riod under different velocity conditions. There is some evidence lactate, ammonia and uric acid concentrations were measured to
that the actual velocity at which loads are lifted during RT has a dif- quantify metabolic stress. The results of these two studies showed
ferential effect on the resulting neuromuscular adaptations [4, 6] a greater degree of fatigue for the MaxV condition compared to
which, in turn, may affect physical and sports performance. HalfV against all loads examined, and particularly against 60 and
Several studies have compared the acute kinetic, kinematic and 70 % 1RM. The REP examined used moderate to heavy loads (60–
physiological effects of resistance exercise performed at different 80 % 1RM), leaving a broad range of loads unexplored. In many ath-
movement velocities [7–9]. Most of these studies have observed letic and physically active populations, it is also common to use
greater oxygen uptake, heart rate, blood lactate and ammonia con- lighter loads in their training routines, and these loads demonstrate
centrations, as well as increased losses in vertical jump height when higher variability in terms of movement velocity. So it would be in-
training was performed at “fast” versus “slow” velocities [4, 6–10]. teresting to extend the analysis of the effect of velocity to a wider
Previous research has also provided evidence that: 1) both the neu- load spectrum. In addition, and considering the importance of neu-
romuscular demands and the training effect itself largely depend ral factors in the process of muscle adaptation [14], it may be im-
on the velocity at which loads are lifted; and 2) movement velocity portant to describe the changes in electromyographic (EMG) vari-

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
depends on the load to overcome and the voluntary intent of the ables induced by REP under different velocity conditions. Therefore,
subject to move that load [4–6]. the aim of the present study was to compare the acute mechani-
In order to isolate and compare the effect of lifting velocity on cal, metabolic and EMG responses of REP performed at MaxV vs.
neuromuscular performance, it is necessary that all the other acute HalfV against five different loads (45 %, 50 %, 55 %, 60 and 65 % 1RM)
exercise variables (loading intensity, number of sets and repeti- in the full squat (SQ) exercise.
tions, rests duration, etc.) remain constant or unmodified across
the REP analyzed. However, this has not been the case with most
studies to date which present methodological inconsistencies that Materials and Methods
prevent determining the real effect of movement velocity on the
acute neuromuscular response. Some studies [11, 12] used differ- Subjects
ent relative loads in order to manipulate repetition velocity (i. e. Eleven young healthy men (mean ± SD: age 23.5 ± 3.6 years, body
high loads for “slow” velocities vs. light loads for “fast” velocities). mass 75.3 ± 7.4 kg, stature 1.77 ± 0.05 m) volunteered to take part
In addition, exercise sets in these studies were conducted to or very in this study. Participants were physically active sports science stu-
close to muscle failure, which involves performing a much greater dents with a RT experience ranging from 1 to 2 years (2–3 sessions
number of repetitions per set for light loads compared to heavy per week). Their initial estimated one-repetition maximum (1RMest)
load protocols [12, 13]. As a result, relative loads and training vol- for the SQ was 111.5 ± 14.2 kg (relative strength ratio: 1.52 ± 0.17).
umes were different for each velocity condition, making it difficult No physical limitations, health problems or musculoskeletal inju-
to clearly interpret the research findings. Other studies manipulat- ries that could affect testing were reported. None of the partici-
ed repetition velocity by imposing a specific lifting cadence using pants were taking drugs, medications, or dietary supplements
a metronome, or a fixed tempo for different movement phases (e. g. known to influence physical performance. The present investiga-
4–1–4–1 seconds for concentric-isometric-eccentric-isometric suc- tion met the ethical standards of this journal [15]. The study was
cessive actions) [7, 8, 10]. In this case, since the length of the lower also approved by the Local Ethics Committee, and conducted ac-
and upper limbs is expected to exhibit high variability between sub- cording to the Declaration of Helsinki. After being informed of the
jects, imposing a predetermined tempo or lifting cadence will re- purpose and experimental procedures, the participants signed a
sult in different movement velocities for each participant. Moreo- written informed consent form before participation.
ver, as loads get heavier and/or repetitions approach failure, fol-
lowing a fixed cadence becomes unfeasible. Finally, most studies Study design
comparing the response to RT under different velocity conditions A cross-sectional research design was used to analyze the mechani-
failed to monitor and register actual repetition velocities during cal, metabolic, and EMG changes induced by REP that only differed
training [8, 10], which makes it impossible to ascertain whether the in the voluntary velocity at which loads were lifted: maximal intend-
differences between exercise protocols are due to differences in ed vs. half-maximal lifting velocity (MaxV vs. HalfV) in each repeti-
movement velocity or respond to the manipulation of other vari- tion. These REP were performed against five different relative loads
ables, such as relative load or exercise volume. (45 %, 50 %, 55 %, 60 and 65 % 1RM) in the SQ exercise. In order to
To the best of our knowledge, only two studies have examined analyze the acute mechanical, metabolic and neural response to each
the effect of movement velocity as a true independent variable session, participants underwent a battery of assessments before and
[4, 6]. In these studies, the effect of performing each repetition at immediately after each REP: (a) CMJ height, (b) the individually de-
two distinct velocity conditions: maximal intended (MaxV) vs. half- termined load that elicited a ~1.00 m · s − 1 ( ± 0.03 m · s − 1) MPV (V1-
maximal (HalfV) concentric velocity against three relative loads load) in the SQ while surface EMG signals of the vastus intermedius
(60 %, 70 and 80 % 1RM) was examined in the squat and bench press (VMI) and vastus lateralis (VLA) were recorded, and (c) blood lactate
exercises [4, 6]. Pre-post changes in countermovement jump (CMJ) concentration. During a period of five weeks, each participant un-
height and in the velocity developed against the load that elicited derwent 10 REP (2 per week), which were conducted on separate
a ~1.00 m · s − 1 mean propulsive velocity (MPV) were taken as me- days with at least 72 h of recovery time between sessions (Monday

1034 García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
and Thursday, or Tuesday and Friday). All sessions were randomized half the target MPV value established for each session. In all ses-
for each participant to avoid the influence of potential confounding sions, participants received immediate velocity feedback (visual
variables. Sessions took place at a performance research laboratory, and auditory) from the software of a linear velocity transducer. This
and were performed at the same time of day for each participant real-time velocity feedback was key for the participants to adjust
( ± 1 h) under similar environmental conditions (~20–22ºC and their concentric lifting velocity as required by each condition. This
55–65 % humidity). Participants were required to refrain from any was practiced in the familiarization sessions. ▶ Fig. 1 show an ex-
other type of intense physical activity or sports training (with the ex- ample of repetition velocity during a REP using three sets of 8 rep-
ception of some core-strengthening exercises) for the duration of etitions against the 45 % 1RM load for a representative participant
the present investigation. During the two weeks preceding this under two velocity conditions: MaxV vs. HalfV. It is important to
study, four familiarization sessions were undertaken in order to em- note that the MPV during each repetition in the HalfV condition
phasize proper exercise technique (SQ and CMJ) and get used to the was very similar to the proposed target velocity.
particular assessment protocols used. The last familiarization session
was used for anthropometric assessments, medical examination and Warm-up
assessment of estimated maximal strength in the SQ exercise. Warm-up for each session consisted of the following: 5 min of jog-

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
ging at a self-selected easy pace, 5 min of lower-limb joint mobili-
Testing procedures zation exercises, two 30 m running accelerations, two sets of 10
Progressive loading test in the SQ exercise body weight squats and, finally, five CMJs at increasing intensity.
A detailed description of the SQ testing protocol has been provid-
ed elsewhere [16]. Testing was performed on a Smith machine Pre- and post-exercise measurements
(Multipower Fitness Line, Peroga, Murcia, Spain). The participants Following the warm-up, three maximal CMJs, separated by 20 s rests,
performed the SQ from an upright position, descending (eccentric were performed by each participant. The average jump height (cm)
phase) at a controlled velocity (~0.50–0.60 m · s − 1) until the pos- was taken as a pre-exercise reference value for each session. This was
terior thighs and calves made contact with each other; then they followed by the individual determination of the V1-load in the SQ.
immediately reversed motion and ascended back (concentric For this purpose, participants performed three sets of 6, 4 and 3 rep-
phase) at maximal intended velocity. Initial load was set at 30 kg etitions (3 min rests) with increasing loads up to the V1-load
for all participants and was gradually increased in 10 kg increments. ( ± 0.03 m · s − 1). The average velocity value of the three repetitions
The test ended when the attained concentric MPV was slower than performed against the V1-load was also taken as a pre-exercise ref-
~0.60 m · s − 1, which corresponds to ~85 % 1RM in the SQ [16]. erence to calculate the pre-post velocity loss experienced following
Three repetitions were performed for light (MPV ≥ 1.10 m · s − 1), each REP [4, 17]. In addition, during the determination of the V1-
two for medium (1.10 m · s − 1 > MPV ≥ 0.80 m · s − 1), and only one for load, the EMG signal of VMI and VLA was recorded. Following these
the heaviest (MPV < 0.80 m · s − 1) loads. Only the best repetition measurements, adjustments in the proposed absolute load for each
(fastest MPV value) against each load was considered for subse- subject were made so that the velocity of the first repetition matched
quent analyses. Inter-set rests ranged from 3 (light) to 5 min (heavy the programmed target MPV ( ± 0.03 m · s − 1). Immediately after com-
loads). The 1RM was individually estimated for each participant pleting the last repetition of the third set, participants performed
from the MPV value attained against the heaviest load lifted in the again three maximal CMJs, separated by 20 s rests. Next, each par-
progressive test, as follows: (100 · load)/(-5.961 · MPV2 − 50.71 · ticipant performed three repetitions against his V1-load (load was
MPV + 117) [16]. changed in less than 10 s with the help of trained spotters) with max-
imal voluntary effort. The CMJ and V1-load average values were taken
Acute resistance exercise protocols as the immediate post-exercise measures.
Each participant completed 10 sessions in which five different REP
were examined under two velocity conditions (MaxV vs. HalfV). For Measurements of fatigue
each REP, three exercise sets with 4 min inter-set rests were per- Similarly to previous studies [18, 19], two different methods were
formed. The same number of repetitions per set were completed used to quantify the extent of fatigue induced by each REP. The first
in both MaxV and HalfV conditions. Descriptive characteristics of method examined the change from pre- to post-exercise in MPV
each REP are provided in ▶Table 1. Relative loads were determined attained against the V1-load. The average MPV of the three pre-
from the load-velocity relationship for the SQ exercise [16]. Thus, exercise repetitions was compared with the average MPV of the
a target MPV value to be attained in the first (usually the fastest) three post-exercise repetitions so that velocity loss was calculated
repetition of the first set in each session was used as an estimation as: 100 · (average MPVpost – average MPVpre)/average MPVpre. The
of %1RM, as follows: 1.24 m · s − 1 (~45 % 1RM), 1.16 m · s − 1 (~50 % second method involved the calculation of percent change in CMJ
1RM), 1.09 m · s − 1 (~55 % 1RM), 1.00 m · s − 1 (~60 % 1RM), and height from pre- to post-exercise.
0.93 m · s − 1 (~65 % 1RM). Once the absolute load (kg) for each par-
ticipant and REP was determined, it was maintained for the three EMG measurements
sets of the corresponding session. In the MaxV condition partici- Surface EMG during the determination of the V1-load in the SQ was
pants performed each repetition at maximal intended velocity. recorded from the VLA and VMI muscles of the right leg via pairs of
Conversely, in the HalfV condition, participants were required to bipolar surface electrodes (Blue Sensor N-00-S, Medicotest) with a
intentionally reduce repetition velocity so that it corresponded to distance between the electrodes’ centers of 22 mm. After careful

García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved. 1035
 Training & Testing Thieme

▶Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the resistance exercise protocols (REP) analyzed.

Scheduled 45 % RM 50 % RM 55 % RM 60 % RM 65 % RM
Sets x reps 3×8 3×6 3×6 3×4 3×3
Target MPV (m · s − 1)
MaxV ~1.24 ± 0.02 ~1.16 ± 0.02 ~1.09 ± 0.02 ~1.00 ± 0.02 ~0.93 ± 0.02
HalfV ~0.62 ± 0.02 ~0.58 ± 0.02 ~0.54 ± 0.02 ~0.50 ± 0.02 ~0.47 ± 0.02
Actually Performed
Reference MPV (m · s − 1)
MaxV 1.24 ± 0.02 1.16 ± 0.02 1.08 ± 0.02 1.00 ± 0.03 0.92 ± 0.02
(~45 % 1RM) (~50 % 1RM) (~55 % 1RM) (~60 % 1RM) (~65 % 1RM)
HalfV 0.68 ± 0.02 0.63 ± 0.02 0.59 ± 0.02 0.56 ± 0.03 0.51 ± 0.03
MPV all reps (m · s − 1)
MaxV 1.09 ± 0.04*** 1.02 ± 0.15*** 0.95 ± 0.04*** 0.90 ± 0.03*** 0.84 ± 0.03***

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
HalfV 0.59 ± 0.01 0.56 ± 0.01 0.52 ± 0.01 0.49 ± 0.01 0.45 ± 0.01
Load (kg)
MaxV 62 ± 10 69 ± 10 71 ± 12 78 ± 11 83 ± 14
HalfV 62 ± 10 69 ± 10 71 ± 12 78 ± 11 83 ± 14

Data are mean ± SD. Each participant performed the 5 REP in two different conditions: MaxV vs. HalfV. MaxV: each repetition was performed at
maximal intended velocity; HalfV: each repetition was performed at half the maximal intended velocity. REP: Resistance exercise protocol; MPV: Mean
propulsive velocity; reps: number of repetitions performed. See text for details.; Statistically significant differences between velocity conditions:
***p < 0.001.

MaxV HalfV
1.4
1.23 1.23 1.25 Target MPV = 1.24 m . s–1
Mean propulsive velocity (m . s–1)

1.2

1.0

0.8
Target MPV = 0.62 m . s–1
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
Average MaxV = 1.11 ± 0.07 MaxV = 1.10 ± 0.08 MaxV = 1.09 ± 0.10
MPV HalfV = 0.60 ± 0.04 HalfV = 0.59 ± 0.02 HalfV = 0.60 ± 0.02

▶Fig. 1 Example of repetition velocity during a REP using 3 × 8 against the 45 % 1RM load for a representative participant under two velocity condi-
tions: MaxV vs. HalfV. Horizontal dashed lines indicate target velocity for both velocity conditions.

preparation of the skin by shaving and cleaning with alcohol, sur- 6 and 500 Hz using a second order Butterworth digital filter. The
face electrodes were placed over the belly of the muscle, parallel parameters analyzed in the present study corresponded to the first
to the presumed orientation of the muscle fibers of VLA and VMI, ac- 500 ms of the concentric phase of the SQ exercise in both VMI and
cording to SENIAM (Surface EMG for Non-Invasive Assessment of VLA muscles [18, 21, 22]. Thus, in order to analyze the neuromus-
Muscles) guidelines [20]. All electrode positions were carefully cular changes, an average of the sEMG parameters of the three pre-
measured for each participant and were marked with henna dye to exercise repetitions against the V1-load was compared with the
ensure identical recording sites throughout the 5-week period in- average of the three post-exercise repetitions in each REP and ve-
tervention to ensure reliable placement of electrodes during all locity condition: 100 x (average EMGpost − average EMGpre)/aver-
sessions. The reference electrode was placed on the patella of the age EMGpre [18]. Thus, for each REP, the percent change obtained
same limb. Skin-electrode impedance was assessed on each occa- in the EMG variables evaluated for MaxV and HalfV was compared.
sion to verify that it was maintained at a consistent level for each
participant (within 0.5 MΩ) and at a value < 5 MΩ for all partici- Analysis of blood lactate
pants. EMG signals were recorded at 1000 Hz. During off-line analy­ Blood lactate concentration was used as an indicator of the meta-
sis, the signals were band-pass filtered in both directions between bolic stress induced by each REP. In each session, whole blood cap-

1036 García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
illary samples were drawn from the earlobe before the warm-up Results
and again 1 min after completing the last repetition against the V1-
load following each REP. Analysis of REP
Descriptive characteristics of the REP analyzed for the two velocity
Measurement equipment and data acquisition conditions are displayed in ▶ Table 1. Both scheduled and actually
Stature and body mass were determined using a medical stadiom- performed repetition velocities and number of repetitions are re-
eter and scale (Seca 710, Seca Ltd., Hamburg, Germany) with the ported. No significant differences were found between the target-
participants in a morning fasting state and wearing only under- ed MVP values and the fastest MPV values of each REP in any con-
clothes. Jump height was measured using an infrared timing sys- dition. No significant differences were observed in the absolute
tem (Optojump Next, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). A Smith machine loads used in each REP between both velocity conditions. As ex-
(Multipower Fitness Line, Peroga, Spain) that ensures a smooth ver- pected, significant differences (p < 0.001) between MaxV and HalfV
tical displacement of the bar along a fixed pathway was used for all were observed in the average MPV value corresponding to each REP
sessions. The Lactate Pro 2 LT-1730 (Arkray, Kyoto, Japan) portable (▶ Table 1).
lactate analyzer was used for lactate measurements. A dynamic

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
measurement system (T-Force System, Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) Acute mechanical and metabolic response
automatically calculated the relevant kinematic parameters of All variables were distributed normally, and homoscedasticity was
every repetition, provided auditory and visual feedback in real- assumed. No significant differences between REP were found at Pre
time, and stored data on disk for analysis. This system consists of for any variable. Average values and ES of mechanical and meta-
a linear velocity transducer interfaced to a personal computer by bolic measurements following each REP are displayed in ▶Table 2,
means of a 14-bit resolution analogue-to-digital acquisition board whereas the changes in EMG variables are presented in ▶Table 3.
and custom software (version 3.70). Instantaneous velocity was Post-exercise MPV attained against the V1-load, CMJ height and
sampled at 1,000 Hz and subsequently smoothed by its software lactate concentration were significantly different (p < 0.001) from
using a 4th order low-pass Butterworth filter with no phase shift and pre-exercise values following all REP in both velocity conditions
10 Hz cut-off frequency. Reliability of this system has been report- (▶ Table 2). Significant “condition x time” interactions (p < 0.05–
ed elsewhere [17]. All velocity values reported in this study corre- 0.01) were observed for all variables for the REP performed against
spond to the MPV of the concentric phase of each repetition. The loads of 45 and 50 % 1RM, whereas for the REP against 55 and 60 %
propulsive phase was defined as that portion of the concentric 1RM, significant “condition x time” interactions (p < 0.05) were only
phase during which the measured acceleration (a) is greater than found for CMJ height and V1-load, respectively. The MaxV condi-
acceleration due to gravity (i. e. a ≥  − 9.81 m · s − 2) [23]. EMG data tion induced significantly greater changes than HalfV in V1-load,
were collected using LabChart software version 7.0 (National In- CMJ height and lactate following REP against 45 and 50 % 1RM
struments Corporation. Austin, TX, USA), and data analysis was (▶ Table 2, ▶ Fig. 2). In addition, significant differences between
performed off-line using the MATLAB 2011a software environment conditions were observed in CMJ following REP against 55 and 65 %
(MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, USA). The following EMG 1RM, and in the V1-load following REP against 60 % 1RM. The MaxV
parameters were calculated: root mean square (RMS), integrated condition resulted in greater percent changes (▶Fig. 2) and intra-
electromyography (iEMG), mean power frequency (Fmean), median condition ES (▶Table 2) compared to HalfV for all REP performed.
power frequency (Fmedian), maximal power frequency (Fmax), Dim-
itrov index (FInsm5),[24] and discrete wavelet transform (DWT) [25]. EMG response
Reliability of these EMG variables was previously reported [18]. There were significant “condition x time” interactions in DWT4
against 45 % 1RM and Fmax against 65 % 1RM (p < 0.05). No signifi-
Statistical analysis cant differences between MaxV and HalfV were observed for any
Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of means variable, except for F mean and F Insm5 against 45 % 1RM and F max
and standard deviations (SD). Differences in V1-load, CMJ, and lac- against 65 % 1RM. Intra-condition comparisons showed significant
tate variables between both velocity conditions in each REP were differences for FInsm5 and Fmean following all REP for both velocity
assessed using a 2 (condition: MaxV vs. HalfV) x 2 (time: Pre vs. conditions, with a tendency to greater percent changes for MaxV
Post) factorial ANOVA with Bonferroni’s adjustment. A paired sam- compared to HalfV (▶ Table 3). In addition, Fmedian presented sta-
ples t-test was used to compare the percent change between MaxV tistically significant changes (p < 0.05–0.001) in both velocity con-
and HalfV in the sEMG variables in each REP. The intra-group effect ditions following REP against 45, 50 and 60 % 1RM. HalfV resulted
sizes (ES) were calculated using Hedge’s g, as follows: g = (mean in significant pre-post differences in iEMG following REP against 45,
Post − mean Pre)/Pooled SD. The ES for changes between the MaxV 50, 55 % 1RM whereas for MaxV this difference was significant only
and HalfV conditions for each dependent variable was calculated following the REP against 65 % 1RM. DWT increased significantly
as follows: g = (mean Pre-Post differences MaxV) − (mean Pre-Post for MaxV following the REP against 55 % 1RM. The rest of the vari-
differences HalfV)/Pooled SD. Threshold values for assessing mag- ables did not show significant changes following any REP.
nitudes of standardized effects were 0.20, 0.60, 1.20, and 2.00 for
small, moderate, large, and very large, respectively [26]. Statistical
significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Analyses were performed Discussion
using SPSS software version 22.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). The purpose of the present study was to describe and compare the
acute response to five REP performed against moderate loads (45–

García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved. 1037
 Training & Testing Thieme

▶Table 2 Changes in mechanical (V1-load and CMJ) and metabolic (lactate) variables from pre- to post-exercise following each REP in each velocity condi-
tion (MaxV vs. HalfV).

REP_45 % RM
MaxV HalfV
Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) ESINTER(95 % CI)
V1-load (m · s − 1) ## 0.96 ± 0.02 0.77 ± 0.08** 3.36 (1.80–4.92) 0.96 ± 0.02 0.84 ± 0.05 2.94 (1.53–4.35) 0.18 ( − 0.65–1.02)
CMJ (cm) ## 36.3 ± 5.0 30.1 ± 4.8** 1.26 (0.64–1.87) 36.8 ± 5.2 32.8 ± 5.0 0.79 (0.43–1.14) 4.85 (3.13–6.57)
Lactate (mmol · l − 1) # 1.1 ± 0.2 6.0 ± 2.3* 3.00 (1.66–4.35) 1.2 ± 0.2 4.1 ± 1.4 2.90 (1.52–4.27) 0.83 ( − 0.04–1.70)
REP_50 % RM
MaxV HalfV
Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) ESINTER(95 % CI)
V1-load (m · s − 1) ## 0.96 ± 0.03 0.76 ± 0.08* 3.32 (1.79–4.85) 0.95 ± 0.04 0.84 ± 0.05 2.48 (1.21–3.75) 0.18 ( − 0.66–1.02)
CMJ (cm) ### 37.0 ± 4.9 32.0 ± 4.8 1.03 (0.57–1.49) 38.3 ± 4.8 34.8 ± 4.7 0.74 (0.41–1.08) 5.09 (3.30–6.87)

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
Lactate (mmol · l − 1) # 1.2 ± 0.2 5.3 ± 2.2* 2.61 (1.40–3.81) 1.1 ± 0.2 3.6 ± 1.4 2.47 (1.18–3.75) 0.69 ( − 0.18–1.55)
REP_55 % RM
MaxV HalfV
Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) ESINTER(95 % CI)
V1-load (m · s − 1) 0.95 ± 0.02 0.78 ± 0.05 4.84 (2.58–7.11) 0.96 ± 0.03 0.83 ± 0.04 3.91 (1.96–5.86) 0.18 ( − 0.66–1.02)
CMJ (cm) # 36.6 ± 4.8 31.9 ± 4.3* 1.03 (0.57–1.49) 38.2 ± 4.7 34.1 ± 4.8 0.85 (0.47–1.23) 5.01 (3.25–6.77)
Lactate (mmol · l − 1) 1.0 ± 0.2 5.5 ± 2.6 2.41 (1.18–3.63) 1.1 ± 0.1 4.1 ± 1.8 2.33 (1.20–3.45) 0.67 ( − 0.19–1.53)
REP_60 % RM
MaxV HalfV
Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) ESINTER(95 % CI)
V1-load (m · s − 1) # 0.95 ± 0.02 0.77 ± 0.06* 3.92 (2.03–5.81) 0.97 ± 0.04 0.84 ± 0.06 2.47 (1.28–3.65) 0.18 ( − 0.66–1.02)
CMJ (cm) 38.1 ± 5.9 33.7 ± 5.6 0.77 (0.42–1.11) 38.8 ± 6.1 34.9 ± 6.1 0.66 (0.35–0.97) 4.44 (2.83–6.06)
Lactate (mmol · l − 1) 1.1 ± 0.1 4.6 ± 2.3 2.12 (0.95–3.29) 1.1 ± 0.2 3.5 ± 1.7 2.59 (1.14–4.05) 0.62 ( − 0.24–1.48)
REP_65 % RM
MaxV HalfV
Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) Pre Post ESINTRA(95 % CI) ESINTER(95 % CI)
V1-load (m · s − 1) 0.96 ± 0.01 0.82 ± 0.05 4.12 (2.13–6.11) 0.96 ± 0.04 0.85 ± 0.08 1.73 (0.83–2.63) 0.17 ( − 0.66–1.01)
CMJ (cm) 38.6 ± 6.1 33.9 ± 6.0* 0.77 (0.41–1.13) 39.4 ± 6.1 35.6 ± 5.6 0.65 (0.36–0.94) 4.56 (2.92–6.20)
Lactate (mmol · l − 1) 1.0 ± 0.2 4.1 ± 1.9 2.31 (1.06–3.56) 1.1 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 1.5 2.04 (1.03–3.06) 0.46 ( − 0.39–1.31)

Data are mean ± SD. Significant differences between pre- and post-exercise for all variables in all REP: p < 0.001. MaxV: each repetition was performed at
maximal intended velocity; HalfV: each repetition was performed at half maximal velocity; REP: resistance exercise protocol; V1-load: load that elicited a
~1 m · s − 1 mean propulsive velocity at Pre; CMJ: countermovement jump; ESINTRA: Intra-condition effect size; ESINTER: Inter-condition effect size; CI:
Confidence interval. Significant “condition x time” interaction: # p < 0.05; ## p < 0.01; ### p < 0.001. Significant inter-condition differences: *p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

65 % 1RM) under two distinct velocity conditions, MaxV vs. HalfV, actual effort undertaken closely corresponded to that intended
in each repetition. The main finding was that performing repeti- ( %1RM). This methodology allowed us to ascertain the differences
tions at MaxV resulted in greater fatigue and metabolic stress com- in average training velocity between the MaxV and HalfV condi-
pared to HalfV following all REP under study. In addition, more pro- tions following each REP (▶Table 1). Furthermore, unlike most pre-
nounced changes in EMG variables were observed in the MaxV con- vious studies [7–10], all variables except lifting velocity remained
dition, suggesting greater neural effects. These findings seem to identical for the two conditions examined. Thus, it is reasonable to
confirm that the actual velocity at which loads are lifted influences suggest that the differences in the neuromuscular response and
the acute neuromuscular response to resistance exercise and, prob- metabolic stress observed between MaxV and HalfV were actually
ably, also affect medium- and long-term performance adaptations due to the distinct lifting velocities used during each REP, as the
[4–6]. Consequently, the intended lifting velocity should be con- relative load ( %1RM), the number of sets and repetitions per set,
sidered as a critical variable when determining the overall intensity and inter-set rests were the same for both conditions. Previous
during RT sessions. studies analyzing the acute mechanical and metabolic effects of
One of the novel aspects of our research was that all REP were voluntary movement velocity used different relative loads, repeti-
carefully controlled in both velocity conditions. Thus, by monitor- tions per set or a fixed lifting cadence [5, 7, 8, 10] for the different
ing movement velocity during all repetitions in each REP and es- groups. As a consequence, the differences observed in these inves-
tablishing a target velocity for all participants in all sessions, the

1038 García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
 tigations cannot be attributed solely to the effect of movement ve-

12.5 ± 13.7*
13.4 ± 17.0
9.8 ± 10.9
− 2.8 ± 10.6

− 2.7 ± 3.9*

− 1.5 ± 8.6
3.2 ± 7.9
2.1 ± 8.0
0.5 ± 7.4
− 2.4 ± 6.0

− 10.4 ± 4.6
− 4.1 ± 8.1

Data are mean ± SD. sEMG: Surface electromyography; MaxV: each repetition was performed at maximal intended velocity; HalfV: each repetition was performed at half maximal velocity; REP: resistance exercise
locity.

wavelet transform. Significant “condition x time” interaction: # p < 0.05; Inter-condition significant differences: † p < 0.05; †† p < 0.01; Intra-condition significant differences from pre- to post-exercise: p < 0.05;
The results of the present study showed that MaxV resulted in

protocol; RMS: root mean square; iEMG: integrated electromyography; Fmedian: median power frequency; Fmean: mean power frequency; Fmax: maximal power frequency; FInsm5: Dimitrov index; DWT: discrete
HalfV
greater losses in mechanical variables (velocity against the V1-load
and CMJ height) and higher metabolic stress (lactate concentra-

23.8 ± 13.7***
tion) compared to HalfV following all REP analyzed (▶ Table 2,

− 0.7 ± 13.3#†
− 3.5 ± 2.2**
− 9.0 ± 10.4*
− 2.7 ± 10.6

11.5 ± 15.2
8.8 ± 15.5
7.1 ± 13.2
7.8 ± 11.0
▶ Fig. 2). Contrary to our findings, one previous study showed no
− 2.5 ± 3.8

5.8 ± 9.2
5.3 ± 9.5
65 %1RM

effect of velocity conditions on lactate [8], while another [9] found

MaxV

that a slow velocity protocol (~2 s concentric phase) resulted in

higher lactate values compared to maximal lifting velocity. How-
ever, these studies [7–9] revealed that the maximal velocity condi-
− 4.1 ± 3.6***

14.5 ± 13.5*
− 3.1 ± 3.2**

tion induced a greater increase in the rate of energy expenditure,

− 6.0 ± 10.6

6.0 ± 27.5
10.3 ± 22.0
3.1 ± 16.8
6.5 ± 18.4
3.2 ± 15.9
1.7 ± 16.5
− 3.3 ± 6.7
− 6.3 ± 7.2

peak heart rate and oxygen uptake than slow-velocity contractions,

suggesting greater exercise intensity for fast contraction modes,
HalfV

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
which appears to conflict with the lower lactate concentrations ob-
served. The fact that lifting velocities were controlled by a metro-
26.7 ± 21.3***
− 5.7 ± 2.1***
− 4.8 ± 2.4***

nome in these studies implies that subjects actually performed the

− 0.9 ± 25.4

12.5 ± 20.9
5.5 ± 14.0
0.9 ± 18.7
4.7 ± 15.1
3.2 ± 12.4
2.1 ± 11.9
▶Table 3 Percentage of changes in selected sEMG variables from pre- to post-exercise following each REP in each velocity condition (MaxV vs. HalfV).

− 1.4 ± 9.8
− 4.2 ± 9.9

repetitions at different velocities, as the displacement was differ-

60 %1RM

ent for each individual. This could explain the differences found in
MaxV

the post-exercise lactate concentrations with the present results.

On the other hand, our results are in agreement with those previ-
18.5 ± 14.6**

ously observed in two studies that used similar exercise protocols

− 3.3 ± 3.9**
− 2.6 ± 10.0

− 5.7 ± 17.3

9.4 ± 22.9
9.4 ± 20.7
− 1.4 ± 14.4
5.1 ± 12.7
3.4 ± 12.5
2.7 ± 15.2
− 7.8 ± 9.9*
− 2.4 ± 6.6

and assessment methods [4, 6]. In these studies, repetition veloc-

ity was also carefully monitored and it served as a guide to ensure
HalfV

that the loads used in each REP were the ones intended. In agree-
ment with the present study, the results of these two studies
showed greater lactate levels as well as losses in the velocity against
− 4.3 ± 3.3***

25.0 ± 13.5**
27.1 ± 21.6**

16.4 ± 19.6**
15.7 ± 14.7*
14.9 ± 20.1*

10.4 ± 12.4*
0.6 ± 14.2

4.5 ± 14.0
− 4.6 ± 10.4

the V1-load and CMJ height for the MaxV compared to the HalfV
0.5 ± 7.1

− 3.1 ± 4.1
55 %1RM

condition. However, changes in the variables used to quantify the

MaxV

acute fatigue were of lesser magnitude for both velocity conditions

in the study by Pareja-Blanco et al. [4] compared to the present
study, despite the fact that in that previous study, REP were con-
22.6 ± 12.7***
− 6.2 ± 5.4***
− 4.8 ± 2.6***
− 13.5 ± 16.1**
− 6.5 ± 17.3*

ducted using the same number of sets and repetitions per set, but
− 5.9 ± 14.5

− 4.0 ± 23.3
− 2.8 ± 25.9
− 2.1 ± 18.0
0.9 ± 19.3
− 0.5 ± 18.6
− 5.7 ± 20.0

against heavier loads (60–80 % 1RM), which should have led to a

higher degree of fatigue [17, 27]. These discrepancies may be due
HalfV

to differences in the protocols used to measure the variables se-

lected to quantify neuromuscular fatigue.
31.5 ± 16.9***

Differences in the mechanical and metabolic response between

− 5.2 ± 2.7***
− 4.2 ± 4.2*

− 6.1 ± 10.3

− 1.3 ± 15.5
2.9 ± 13.3

11.8 ± 14.0
11.4 ± 12.5
5.5 ± 10.5

the MaxV and HalfV conditions could be due to (a) greater tension
0.2 ± 8.7

6.2 ± 8.5
− 0.9 ± 9.0
50 %1RM

in the muscle fibres, and (b) increased muscle activation as a result

MaxV

of the greater motor unit recruitment and/or firing frequency that

occurs when a load ( %1RM) is lifted as fast as possible in each rep-
etition [5, 10, 28, 29], as suggested by our EMG results. Therefore,
− 4.9 ± 3.3†***

25.8 ± 19.4**
− 4.5 ± 4.2**

since the REP used in the present study were not conducted to mus-
− 10.7 ± 7.0*

− 2.6 ± 13.3

2.4 ± 12.7
− 1.2 ± 17.9
− 5.3 ± 11.5
− 2.6 ± 10.1
− 2.7 ± 10.1
− 6.9 ± 6.8*

− 4.0 ± 9.8

cle failure, it is likely that lifting loads at maximal intended velocity

stimulated and activated type II fibres to a greater extent [30, 31],
HalfV

and resulted in greater degrees of fatigue and metabolic stress

[32, 33] compared to performing repetitions deliberately slower
38.6 ± 26.2†***

(HalfV condition). This type of RT (i. e. performing repetitions at

− 6.7 ± 3.7***
− 6.8 ± 2.8***
− 14.1 ± 11.3**

8.7 ± 13.9#

maximal intended velocity and ending each set well ahead of mus-
− 3.1 ± 10.6

6.9 ± 15.6
7.3 ± 20.0
5.8 ± 13.5

6.4 ± 13.5
1.5 ± 11.9
− 6.5 ± 11.6

**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

cle failure) seems to provide better conditions to induce neuromus-

45 %1RM

cular adaptations aimed at increasing strength and RFD [4, 5, 34].

MaxV

Another novelty of this study was that the changes in EMG var-
iables were analyzed in an attempt to understand the neural mech-
anisms underlying the changes in mechanical and metabolic vari-
DWT 7
DWT 6
DWT 5
DWT 4
DWT 3
DWT 2
Fmedian

FInsm5
iEMG

Fmean

ables following the REP performed at the two distinct velocity con-
RMS

Fmax

ditions. Since alterations in EMG variables can be related to the

García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved. 1039
 Training & Testing Thieme

a b c
30
* * 24 * 10

Post-exercise Lactate (mmol . L–1)

* 21 * MaxV
25 * 8 *

Loss of CMJ height (%)

18 HalfV
Loss of MPV against

** * *
the V1-Load (%)

20
15 * 6
15 12
9 4
10
6
5 2
3
0 0 0
45 % 50 % 55 % 60 % 65 % 45 % 50 % 55 % 60 % 65 % 45 % 50 % 55 % 60 % 65 %
Load (% 1RM) Load (% 1RM) Load (% 1RM)

▶Fig. 2 (a) Percent loss in mean propulsive velocity against the V1-load from pre- to post-exercise in the SQ exercise; (b) loss of CMJ height from

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
pre- to post-exercise; (c) post-exercise lactate concentration following each REP in the two velocity conditions (MaxV vs. HalfV) analyzed. Statistically
significant differences between MaxV and HalfV: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

degree of fatigue, several studies have focused on analyzing chang- cally significant and, most importantly, they did not allow to dis-
es in these variables during and after RT protocols [10, 18, 35–37]. criminate between the two velocity conditions. Thus, our results
However, few studies have compared the EMG response to REP that suggest that these variables have a relatively low sensitivity for
differed in voluntary lifting velocity [10] where, in any case, only a identifying losses in mechanical variables (muscle strength and
limited number of variables (RMS) was analyzed. Our results re- power output) and increments in metabolic stress, at least against
vealed that FInsm5 was the variable showing the greatest change REP in which the exercise sets end well ahead of reaching failure.
both for MaxV (23–28 %) and HalfV (12–25 %) conditions following Finally, all frequency domains of DWT resulted in increments
all REP under study. These findings are similar to those observed in following all REP performed at MaxV, although significant changes
previous studies analyzing the changes in FInsm5 to assess neuro- were only found in the REP performed against 55 % 1RM (▶ Table
muscular fatigue [18, 35, 36]. In addition, the magnitude of change 3). In contrast, changes for the HalfV condition were less consist-
of this variable was higher for MaxV compared to HalfV following ent and depended on the relative load used (▶ Table 3). In addi-
all REP, with a higher change observed for both velocity conditions tion, as observed in previous studies [18, 25], there was a tenden-
in the REP that used lower relative loads. This behavior in FInsm5 cy to show higher percent changes for lower frequency ranges
matched the changes observed in the mechanical variables and (DWT4–7) when repetitions were performed at maximal intended
post-exercise lactate concentration. Therefore, our results seem velocity. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have
to confirm that this variable has greater sensitivity for assessing analyzed changes in DWT following REP performed with different
muscle fatigue during concentric dynamic actions than the other voluntary velocities. Therefore, based on our results, it appears that
EMG variables analyzed [18]. the MaxV condition induces greater changes than HalfV in these
On the other hand, and in agreement with our results, some variables, although, as occurs with the EMG amplitude and frequen-
studies showed that RMS and iEMG remained unaltered or slightly cy variables, the differences do not seem to be sufficient to discrim-
decreased during or following different REP [18, 38, 39]. In contrast, inate between the two velocity conditions.
the only known study comparing changes in RMS during REP with
different velocity contraction modes [10] reported a slight increase
in this variable between the first and the last repetition of sets con- Conclusions
ducted to muscle failure, regardless of the relative load used (40, In brief, our results showed that MaxV induced greater mechanical
50, 60, 70 and 80 % 1RM), the voluntary lifting velocity and the (loss in velocity against the V1-load and CMJ height) and metabol-
muscle assessed (pectoralis, deltoid and triceps). However, it ic (post-exercise lactate) stress compared to HalfV following all REP
should be taken into account that in the present study, REP were analyzed. In addition, performing each repetition at MaxV resulted
characterized by the completion of less than half of the possible in more pronounced changes in EMG variables, particularly in FInsm5,
repetitions in each set. Therefore, the lower degree of fatigue ex- than performing repetitions deliberately slower, at HalfV.
perienced in each REP could explain the different EMG responses
observed between that study [10] and the present one. With re-
gard to EMG frequency variables, similarly to our results, previous Practical Applications
studies have revealed progressive decrements in Fmean, Fmedian and The results of the present study clearly showed that for a given ex-
Fmax during or following exercise sets conducted to muscle failure ercise protocol, performing repetitions at MaxV vs. HalfV consider-
[18, 36–39]. However, despite these modifications in the EMG am- ably impacts the degree of fatigue experienced and the neuromus-
plitude (RMS and iEMG) and frequency (Fmean, Fmedian and Fmax) var- cular (EMG) response, regardless of the relative loads used. Thus, the
iables, the observed changes were of low magnitude, not statisti- main practical application that can be drawn from this study is that

1040 García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
voluntary movement velocity is a key aspect to consider since it clear- [9] Mazzetti S, Douglass M, Yocum A et al. Effect of explosive versus slow
contractions and exercise intensity on energy expenditure. Med Sci
ly determines the overall training intensity. Movement velocity ap-
Sports Exerc 2007; 39: 1291–1301
pears to have a direct influence on the type and magnitude of the
[10] Sakamoto A, Sinclair PJ. Muscle activations under varying lifting
training stimuli and, very likely, on the resulting adaptations. Thus,
speeds and intensities during bench press. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012;
coaches and strength and conditioning professionals could manipu- 112: 1015–1025
late this variable to modify the degree of fatigue incurred during [11] Blazevich AJ, Jenkins DG. Effect of the movement speed of resistance
training and the short-term responses. Moreover, it is important that training exercises on sprint and strength performance in concurrently
athletes understand the benefits of performing repetitions at maxi- training elite junior sprinters. J Sports Sci 2002; 20: 981–990
mal intended velocity when implementing RT programs. On the [12] Richardson DL, Duncan MJ, Jimenez A et al. Effects of movement
other hand, considering that the losses of MPV against the V1-load velocity and training frequency of resistance exercise on functional
and CMJ height similarly reflect the neuromuscular fatigue induced performance in older adults: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Sport
Sci 2019; 19: 234–246
by REP performed at different velocity conditions, the monitoring of
[13] Pereira MI, Gomes PS. Effects of isotonic resistance training at two
CMJ is recommended to quantify the degree of fatigue experienced
movement velocities on strength gains. Rev Bras Med Esporte 2007;
during squat training. Monitoring of CMJ height is easier to apply,

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
13: 79–83
more practical, and less expensive than measuring changes in the [14] Folland JP, Williams AG. The adaptations to strength training:
velocity developed against the V1-load. Another practical applica- Morphological and neurological contributions to increased strength.
tion is that, in order to analyze the neural changes induced by differ- Sports Med 2007; 37: 145–168
ent REP, it is recommended to focus on FInsm5 because this seems to [15] Harriss DJ, MacSween A, Atkinson G. Ethical Standards in Sport and
be the EMG variable that best reflects the degree of fatigue. Exercise Science Research: 2020 Update. Int J Sports Med 2019; 40:
813–817
[16] Sánchez-Medina L, Pallarés JG, Pérez CE et al. Estimation of relative
Conflicts of Interest load from bar velocity in the full back squat exercise. Sports Med Int
Open 2017; 1: E80–E88

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose with any outside [17] Sanchez-Medina L, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Velocity loss as an indicator of
institution, company, or manufacturer. The results of this study are neuromuscular fatigue during resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc
presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, or inappropriate 2011; 43: 1725–1734
data manipulation. [18] Rodriguez-Rosell D, Yanez-Garcia JM, Mora-Custodio R et al. Role of
the effort index in predicting neuromuscular fatigue during resistance
exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2020. Online ahead of print.
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003805.
References [19] Rodriguez-Rosell D, Yanez-Garcia JM, Torres-Torrelo J et al. Effort Index
as a novel variable for monitoring the level of effort during resistance
[1] Spiering BA, Kraemer WJ, Anderson JM et al. Resistance exercise exercises. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 2139–2153
biology: Manipulation of resistance exercise programme variables [20] Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C et al. Development of
determines the responses of cellular and molecular signalling recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement
pathways. Sports Med 2008; 38: 527–540 procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2000; 10: 361–374
[2] Bird SP, Tarpenning KM, Marino FE. Designing resistance training [21] Rodriguez-Rosell D, Yanez-Garcia JM, Mora-Custodio R et al.
programmes to enhance muscular fitness: A review of the acute Velocity-based resistance training: Impact of velocity loss in the set on
programme variables. Sports Med 2005; 35: 841–851 neuromuscular performance and hormonal response. Appl Physiol
[3] Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: Nutr Metab 2020; 45: 817–828
Progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: [22] Rodriguez-Rosell D, Yanez-Garcia JM, Mora-Custodio R et al. Effect of
674–688 velocity loss during squat training on neuromuscular performance.
[4] Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina L et al. Effect of Scand J Med Sci Sports 2021; 31: 1621–1635
movement velocity during resistance training on neuromuscular [23] Sanchez-Medina L, Perez CE, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Importance of the
performance. Int J Sports Med 2014; 35: 916–924 propulsive phase in strength assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31:
[5] Davies TB, Kuang K, Orr R et al. Effect of movement velocity during 123–129
resistance training on dynamic muscular strength: a systematic review [24] Carvalho MJ, Marques E, Mota J. Training and detraining effects on
and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2017; 47: 1603–1617 functional fitness after a multicomponent training in older women.
[6] Gonzalez-Badillo JJ, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Sanchez-Medina L et al. Gerontology 2009; 55: 41–48
Maximal intended velocity training induces greater gains in bench [25] Penailillo L, Silvestre R, Nosaka K. Changes in surface EMG assessed by
press performance than deliberately slower half-velocity training. Eur J discrete wavelet transform during maximal isometric voluntary
Sport Sci 2014; 14: 772–781 contractions following supramaximal cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol 2013;
[7] Buitrago S, Wirtz N, Flenker U et al. Physiological and metabolic 113: 895–904
responses as function of the mechanical load in resistance exercise. [26] Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM et al. Progressive statistics
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2014; 39: 345–350 for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
[8] Buitrago S, Wirtz N, Yue Z et al. Effects of load and training modes on Exerc 2009; 41: 3–13
physiological and metabolic responses in resistance exercise. Eur J [27] Pareja-Blanco F, Rodriguez-Rosell D, Aagaard P et al. Time course of
Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 2739–2748 recovery from resistance exercise with different set configurations.
J Strength Cond Res 2020; 34: 2867–2876

García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved. 1041
 Training & Testing Thieme

[28] Moss BM, Refsnes PE, Abildgaard A et al. Effects of maximal effort [34] Van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, Hainaut K. Changes in single motor unit
strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross- behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after
sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships. Eur J Appl dynamic training in humans. J Physiol 1998; 513: 295–305
Physiol 1997; 75: 193–199 [35] Dimitrov GV, Arabadzhiev TI, Mileva KN et al. Muscle fatigue during
[29] Desmedt JE, Godaux E. Ballistic contractions in man: Characteristic dynamic contractions assessed by new spectral indices. Med Sci Sports
recruitment pattern of single motor units of the tibialis anterior Exerc 2006; 38: 1971–1979
muscle. J Physiol 1977; 264: 673–693 [36] Gonzalez-Izal M, Malanda A, Navarro-Amezqueta I et al. EMG spectral
[30] Van Cutsem M, Duchateau J. Preceding muscle activity influences indices and muscle power fatigue during dynamic contractions.
motor unit discharge and rate of torque development during ballistic J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010; 20: 233–240
contractions in humans. J Physiol 2005; 562: 635–644 [37] Gonzalez-Izal M, Rodriguez-Carreno I, Malanda A et al. sEMG
[31] Viitasalo JT, Komi PV. Force-time characteristics and fiber composition wavelet-based indices predicts muscle power loss during dynamic
in human leg extensor muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol 1978; 40: 7–15 contractions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2010; 20: 1097–1106
[32] Ahtiainen JP, Hakkinen K. Strength athletes are capable to produce [38] Gorostiaga EM, Navarro-Amezqueta I, Gonzalez-Izal M et al. Blood
greater muscle activation and neural fatigue during high-intensity lactate and sEMG at different knee angles during fatiguing leg press
resistance exercise than nonathletes. J Strength Cond Res 2009; 23: exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012; 112: 1349–1358

This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.
1129–1134 [39] Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Calbet JA et al. Neuromuscular fatigue after
[33] Marshall PW, Robbins DA, Wrightson AW et al. Acute neuromuscular resistance training. Int J Sports Med 2009; 30: 614–623
and fatigue responses to the rest-pause method. J Sci Med Sport 2012;
15: 153–158

1042 García JMY et al. Movement Velocity as a … Int J Sports Med 2022; 43: 1033–1042 | © 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.