Effects of 4 Different Velocity-Based Resistance-Training Programming Models on Physical Performance.

PURPOSE: To examine the effects of 4 programming models (linear [LP], undulating [UP], reverse [RP], and constant [CP]) on physical performance. METHODS: Forty-eight moderately strength-trained men were randomly assigned to LP, UP, RP, and CP groups according to their 1-repetition maximum (1RM) in the full-squat exercise (SQ) and followed an 8-week training intervention using the SQ and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar mean relative intensity (65% 1RM), number of repetitions (240), sets (3), and interset recovery (4 min) throughout the training program. Pretraining and posttraining measurements included, in the SQ, 1RM load, the average velocity attained for all absolute loads common to pretests and posttests (AV), and the average velocity for loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s-1 at pretraining tests. Moreover, countermovement jump height and 20-m running sprint time were measured. RESULTS: A significant time effect was found for all variables analyzed (P < .05), except for 20-m running sprint time. Significant group × time interactions were observed for 1RM, AV > 1, and AV (P < .05). After training, all groups attained significant strength gains on 1RM, AV, AV > 1, and AV < 1 (P < .001-.01). LP and RP groups improved their countermovement jump height (P < .01), but no significant changes were observed for UP and CP. No significant improvements were achieved in 20-m running sprint time for any groups. CONCLUSIONS: These different programming models are all suitable for improving physical performance. LP and RP induce similar or greater gains in physical performance than UP and CP.

Effects of Four Different Velocity-Based Training Programming Models on Strength Gains and Physical Performance.

ABSTRACT: Riscart-López, J, Rendeiro-Pinho, G, Mil-Homens, P, Costa, RS-d, Loturco, I, Pareja-Blanco, F, and León-Prados, JA. Effects of Four different velocity-based training programming models on strength gains and physical performance. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 596-603, 2021-The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 4 velocity-based training (VBT) programming models (linear programming [LP], undulating programming [UP], reverse programming [RP], and constant programming [CP]) on the physical performance of moderately strength-trained men. Forty-three young (age: 22.9 ± 4.8 years; body mass [BM]: 71.7 ± 7.6; full squat [SQ] relative strength 1.32 ± 0.29) subjects were randomly assigned to LP (gradually increase training intensity and decrease volume), UP (volume and intensity increase or decrease repeatedly), RP (gradually increases volume and decrease intensity), and CP (maintains constant volume and intensity) groups and followed an 8-week VBT intervention using the SQ exercise and monitoring movement velocity for every repetition. All groups trained with similar relative average intensity (67.5% 1 repetition maximum [1RM]), magnitude of velocity loss within the set (20%), number of sets (3), and interset recoveries (4 minutes) throughout the training program. Pre-training and post-training measurements included predicted SQ (1RM), average velocity attained for all loads common to pre-tests and post-tests (AV), average velocity for those loads that were moved faster (AV > 1) and slower (AV < 1) than 1 m·s-1 at pre-tests, countermovement jump height (CMJ), and 20-m sprint time (T20). No significant group × time interactions were observed for any of the variables analyzed. All groups obtained similar increases (shown in effect size values) in 1RM strength (LP: 0.88; UP: 0.54; RP: 0.62; CP: 0.51), velocity-load-related variables (LP: 0.74-4.15; UP: 0.46-5.04; RP: 0.36-3.71; CP: 0.74-3.23), CMJ height (LP: 0.35; UP: 0.53; RP: 0.49; CP: 0.34), and sprint performance (LP: 0.34; UP: 0.35; RP: 0.32; CP: 0.30). These results suggest that different VBT programming models induced similar physical performance gains in moderately strength-trained subjects.