Time Course of Recovery From Different Velocity Loss Thresholds and Set Configurations During Full-Squat Training.

ABSTRACT: Cornejo-Daza, PJ, Villalba-Fernández, A, González-Badillo, JJ, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Time course of recovery from different velocity loss thresholds and set configurations during full-squat training. J Strength Cond Res 38(2): 221-227, 2024-The aims of the research were to examine the effects of (a) velocity loss (VL) thresholds and (b) set configuration, traditional or cluster, on time-course recovery. A randomized cross-over research design was conducted, in which 15 resistance-trained men performed 4 protocols consisting of 3 sets of 70% 1RM in full squat (SQ), differing in the VL incurred during the set assessed with a linear velocity transducer: (a) 20% (70-20), (b) 30% (70-30), (c) 40% (70-40), and in the set configuration (d) 20% of VL using a cluster methodology (70-CLU). Movement velocity against the load that elicited a 1 m·s -1 velocity at baseline measurements (V1-load) in SQ, countermovement jump (CMJ) height, and sprint time in 20 m (T20) were assessed at baseline (Pre) and postintervention (Post, 6 hour-Post, 24 hour-Post, and 48 hour-Post). The 70-20 protocol resulted in fewer total repetitions than the other protocols ( p = 0.001), whereas 70-CLU, 70-30, and 70-40 completed similar total repetitions. The 70-30 protocol significantly worsened T20 at 6 hours-Post, CMJ at 48 hours-Post, and V1-load at 6 hours-Post ( p < 0.05). The 70-40 protocol significantly impaired T20 at 6 hours-Post, and CMJ and V1-load at 24 hours-Post ( p < 0.05). No significant performance reductions were observed for 70-20 and 70-CLU at 6 hours-Post, 24 hours-Post, and 48 hours-Post. Protocols with higher VL resulted in more pronounced fatigue and a slower rate of recovery. Cluster sets (70-CLU) resulted in higher volume than protocols with a similar level of fatigue (70-20) and a quicker recovery than protocols with a similar volume (70-30 and 70-40).

Effects of Velocity Loss During Body Mass Prone-Grip Pull-up Training on Strength and Endurance Performance.

Sánchez-Moreno, M, Cornejo-Daza, PJ, González-Badillo, JJ, and Pareja-Blanco, F. Effects of velocity loss during body mass prone-grip pull-up training on strength and endurance performance. J Strength Cond Res 34(4): 911-917, 2020-This study aimed to analyze the effects of 2 pull-up (PU) training programs that differed in the magnitude of repetition velocity loss allowed in each set (25% velocity loss "VL25" vs. 50% velocity loss "VL50") on PU performance. Twenty-nine strength-trained men (age = 26.1 ± 6.3 years, body mass [BM] = 74.2 ± 6.4 kg, and 15.9 ± 4.9 PU repetitions to failure) were randomly assigned to 2 groups: VL25 (n = 15) or VL50 (n = 14) and followed an 8-week (16 sessions) velocity-based BM prone-grip PU training program. Mean propulsive velocity (MPV) was monitored in all repetitions. Assessments performed at pre-training and post-training included estimated 1 repetition maximum; average MPV attained with all common external loads used during pre-training and post-training testing (AVinc); peak MPV lifting one's own BM (MPVbest); maximum number of repetitions to failure lifting one's own BM (MNR); and average MPV corresponding to the same number of repetitions lifting one's own BM performed during pre-training testing (AVMNR). VL25 attained significantly greater gains than VL50 in all analyzed variables except in MNR (P < 0.05). In addition, VL25 improved significantly (P < 0.001) in all the evaluated variables while VL50 remained unchanged. In conclusion, our results suggest that once a 25% velocity loss is achieved during PU training, further repetitions did not elicit additional gains and can even blunt the improvement in strength and endurance performance.

Effects of Velocity Loss During Bench-Press Training With Light Relative Loads.

PURPOSE: This study explored the effects of 4 bench-press (BP) training programs with different velocity-loss (VL) thresholds (0%, 15%, 25%, and 50%) on strength gains and neuromuscular adaptations. METHODS: Forty-six resistance-trained men (22.8 [4.4] y) were randomly assigned into 4 groups that differed in the VL allowed within the set: 0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50). Training loads (40%-55% 1-repetition maximum), frequency (2 sessions/wk), number of sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) were identical for all groups. Participants completed the following tests before and after an 8-week (16-session) BP training program: (1) maximal isometric test, (2) progressive loading test, and (3) fatigue test in the BP exercise. During all tests, triceps brachii muscle electromyography was assessed. RESULTS: After completing the resistance-training program, no significant group × time interactions were noticed for isometric and dynamic BP strength variables. The dose-response relationship exhibited an inverted U-shaped relationship pattern, with VL25 showing the greatest effect sizes for almost all strength variables analyzed. The total number of repetitions performed during the training program increased as the VL magnitude increased. CONCLUSIONS: The group that trained with high VL threshold (50%), which performed a total of 876 repetitions, did not experience additional strength gains compared with those experienced by the 0%, 15%, and 25% of VL groups, which performed significantly fewer repetitions (48, 357, and 547, respectively). These findings suggest that when light loads (40%-55% 1-repetition maximum) are used, low and moderate VL thresholds (0%-25%) provide a higher training efficiency.

Effects of different phenylcapsaicin doses on resistance training performance, muscle damage, protein breakdown, metabolic response, ratings of perceived exertion, and recovery: a randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the effects of a low dose (LD) of 0.625 mg and a high dose (HD) of 2.5 mg of phenylcapsaicin (PC) on full squat (SQ) performance, active muscle (RPE-AM) and overall body (RPE-OB) ratings of perceived exertion, muscle damage, protein breakdown, metabolic response, and 24-h recovery in comparison to placebo (PLA). METHOD: Twenty-five resistance-trained males (age = 21.00 ± 2.15 years, SQ 1-repetition maximum [1RM] normalized = 1.66 ± 0.22 kg) were enrolled in this randomized, triple-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Participants completed 2 weekly sessions per condition (LD, HD, and PLA). The first session consisted of pre-blood testing of lactate, urea, and aspartate aminotransferases (AST) and 2 SQ repetitions with 60% 1RM followed by the resistance exercise protocol, which consisted of SQ sets of 3 × 8 × 70% 1RM monitoring lifting velocity. RPE-OB and RPE-AM were assessed after each set. After the first session, 2 SQ repetitions with 60% 1RM were performed, and blood lactate and urea posttests were collected. After 24 h, AST posttest and 1 × 2 × 60% 1RM were determined as biochemical and mechanical fatigue outcomes. RESULTS: HD reported significant differences for RPE-AM, AST, and SQ performance compared to LD and PLA. Post-hoc analyses revealed that HD attained faster velocities in SQ than LD (p = 0.008). HD induced a lower RPE-AM when compared with LD (p = 0.02) and PLA (p = 0.004). PLA resulted in higher AST concentrations at 24-h post than HD (p = 0.02). No significant differences were observed for the rest of the comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that PC may favorably influence SQ performance, RPE-AM, and muscle damage compared to PLA. However, HD exhibited most of the biochemical and mechanical anti-fatigue effects instead of LD.

Specific Adaptations to 0%, 15%, 25%, and 50% Velocity-Loss Thresholds During Bench Press Training.

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of 4 velocity-loss (VL) thresholds-0% (VL0), 15% (VL15), 25% (VL25), and 50% (VL50)-on strength gains, neuromuscular adaptations, and muscle hypertrophy during the bench press (BP) exercise using intensities ranging from 55% to 70% of 1-repetition maximum (1RM). METHODS: Fifty resistance-trained men were randomly assigned to 4 groups that followed an 8-week (16 sessions) BP training program at 55% to 70% 1RM but differed in the VL allowed in each set (VL0, VL15, VL25, and VL50). Assessments performed before (pre) and after (post) the training program included (1) cross-sectional area of pectoralis major muscle, (2) maximal isometric test, (3) progressive loading test, and (4) fatigue test in the BP exercise. RESULTS: A significant group × time interaction was found for 1RM (P = .01), where all groups except VL0 showed significant gains in 1RM strength (P < .001). The VL25 group attained the greatest gains in 1RM strength and most load-velocity relationship parameters analyzed. A significant group × time interaction was observed for EMG root mean square in pectoralis major (P = .03) where only the VL25 group showed significant increases (P = .02). VL50 showed decreased EMG root mean square in triceps brachii (P = .006). Only the VL50 group showed significant increases in cross-sectional area (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that a VL threshold of about 25% with intensities from 55% to 70% 1RM in BP provides an optimal training stimulus to maximize dynamic strength performance and neuromuscular adaptations, while higher VL thresholds promote higher muscle hypertrophy.