Quantum mechanics

Biology

Statistics

Squat

Animal science

One-repetition maximum

Physics

Mathematics

Physical therapy

Econometrics

Jump

Bench press

Resistance training

Medicine

Strength training

The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Dorrell, HF, Smith, MF, and Gee, TI. Comparison of velocity-based and traditional percentage-based loading methods on maximal strength and power adaptations. J Strength Cond Res 34(1): 46–53, 2020—This study explored the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) on maximal strength and jump height. Sixteen trained men (22.8 ± 4.5 years) completed a countermovement jump (CMJ) test and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) assessment on back squat, bench press, strict overhead press, and deadlift, before and after 6 weeks of resistance training. Participants were assigned to VBT or percentage-based training (PBT) groups. The VBT group's load was dictated through real-time velocity monitoring, as opposed to pretesting 1RM data (PBT). No significant differences were present between groups for pretesting data ( p &gt; 0.05). Training resulted in significant increases ( p &lt; 0.05) in maximal strength for back squat (VBT 9%, PBT 8%), bench press (VBT 8%, PBT 4%), strict overhead press (VBT 6%, PBT 6%), and deadlift (VBT 6%). Significant increases in CMJ were witnessed for the VBT group only (5%). A significant interaction effect was witnessed between training groups for bench press ( p = 0.004) and CMJ ( p = 0.018). Furthermore, for back squat (9%), bench press (6%), and strict overhead press (6%), a significant difference was present between the total volume lifted. The VBT intervention induced favorable adaptations in maximal strength and jump height in trained men when compared with a traditional PBT approach. Interestingly, the VBT group achieved these positive outcomes despite a significant reduction in total training volume compared with the PBT group. This has potentially positive implications for the management of fatigue during resistance training.

Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Percentage-Based Loading Methods on Maximal Strength and Power Adaptations