Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1RM-Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11510%2F19%3A10384068" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11510/19:10384068 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=HglW9_51CZ" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=HglW9_51CZ</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0147" target="_blank" >10.1123/ijspp.2018-0147</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1RM-Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Purpose: This study compared kinetic and kinematic data from three different velocity-based training (VBT) sessions and a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) percent-based training (PBT) session using full-depth, free-weight back squats with maximal concentric effort. Methods: Fifteen strength-trained men performed four randomized resistance-training sessions 96-hours apart: PBT session involved five sets of five repetitions using 80%1RM; load-velocity profile (LVP) session contained five sets of five repetitions with a load that could be adjusted to achieve a target velocity established from an individualized LVP equation at 80%1RM; fixed sets 20% velocity loss threshold (FSVL20) session that consisted of five sets at 80%1RM but sets were terminated once the mean velocity (MV) dropped below 20% of the threshold velocity or when five repetitions were completed per set; variable sets 20% velocity loss threshold (VSVL20) session comprised 25-repetitions in total, but participants performed as many repetitions in a set as possible until the 20% velocity loss threshold was exceeded. Results: When averaged across all repetitions, MV and peak velocity (PV) were significantly (p&lt;0.05) faster during the LVP (MV: ES=1.05; PV: ES=1.12) and FSVL20 (MV: ES=0.81; PV: ES=0.98) sessions compared to PBT. Mean time under tension (TUT) and concentric TUT were significantly less during the LVP session compared to PBT. FSVL20 session had significantly less repetitions, total TUT and concentric TUT than PBT. No significant differences were found for all other measurements between any of the sessions. Conclusions: VBT permits faster velocities, avoids additional unnecessary mechanical stress but maintains similar measures of force and power output compared to strength-oriented PBT.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of the Effects of Velocity-Based Training Methods and Traditional 1RM-Percent-Based Training Prescription on Acute Kinetic and Kinematic Variables

Popis výsledku anglicky

Purpose: This study compared kinetic and kinematic data from three different velocity-based training (VBT) sessions and a 1-repetition maximum (1RM) percent-based training (PBT) session using full-depth, free-weight back squats with maximal concentric effort. Methods: Fifteen strength-trained men performed four randomized resistance-training sessions 96-hours apart: PBT session involved five sets of five repetitions using 80%1RM; load-velocity profile (LVP) session contained five sets of five repetitions with a load that could be adjusted to achieve a target velocity established from an individualized LVP equation at 80%1RM; fixed sets 20% velocity loss threshold (FSVL20) session that consisted of five sets at 80%1RM but sets were terminated once the mean velocity (MV) dropped below 20% of the threshold velocity or when five repetitions were completed per set; variable sets 20% velocity loss threshold (VSVL20) session comprised 25-repetitions in total, but participants performed as many repetitions in a set as possible until the 20% velocity loss threshold was exceeded. Results: When averaged across all repetitions, MV and peak velocity (PV) were significantly (p&lt;0.05) faster during the LVP (MV: ES=1.05; PV: ES=1.12) and FSVL20 (MV: ES=0.81; PV: ES=0.98) sessions compared to PBT. Mean time under tension (TUT) and concentric TUT were significantly less during the LVP session compared to PBT. FSVL20 session had significantly less repetitions, total TUT and concentric TUT than PBT. No significant differences were found for all other measurements between any of the sessions. Conclusions: VBT permits faster velocities, avoids additional unnecessary mechanical stress but maintains similar measures of force and power output compared to strength-oriented PBT.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30300 - Health sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

ISSN

1555-0265

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

14

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

246-255

Kód UT WoS článku

000457115600017

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85060626314