Superior Changes in Jump, Sprint, and Change-of-Direction Performance but Not Maximal Strength Following 6 Weeks of Velocity-Based Training Compared With 1-Repetition-Maximum Percentage-Based Training

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11510%2F21%3A10418397" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11510/21:10418397 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

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

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2019-0999" target="_blank" >10.1123/ijspp.2019-0999</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Superior Changes in Jump, Sprint, and Change-of-Direction Performance but Not Maximal Strength Following 6 Weeks of Velocity-Based Training Compared With 1-Repetition-Maximum Percentage-Based Training

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Purpose: This study compared the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) and one-repetition maximum (1RM) percent-based training (PBT) on changes in strength, loaded countermovement jump (CMJ) and sprint performance. Methods: Twenty-four resistance-trained males performed 6-weeks of full-depth free-weight back squats 3-times/week in a daily undulating format, with groups matched for sets and repetitions. PBT group lifted with fixed relative loads varying from 59-85% of pre-intervention 1RM. VBT group aimed for a sessional target velocity that was prescribed from pre-training individualized load-velocity profiles. Thus, real-time velocity feedback dictated the VBT set-by-set training load adjustments. Pre- and post-training assessments included 1RM, peak velocity for CMJ @30%1RM (PV-CMJ), 20-m sprint (including 5-m and 10-m), and 505 change-of-direction test (COD). Results: VBT group maintained faster (Effect Size [ES]=1.25) training repetitions with less perceived difficulty (ES=0.72) compared to PBT group. VBT group had likely to very likely improvements in COD (ES=-1.20--1.27), 5-m sprint (ES=-1.17), 10-m sprint (ES=-0.93), 1RM (ES=0.89) and PV-CMJ (ES=0.79). PBT group had almost certain improvements in 1RM (ES=1.41), and possibly beneficial COD (ES=-0.86). Very likely favorable between group effects were observed for VBT than PBT in PV-CMJ (ES=1.81), 5-m sprint (ES=1.35), and 20-m sprint (ES=1.27); likely favorable 10-m sprint (ES=1.24) and NDL-COD (ES=0.96); whilst DL-COD (ES=0.67) was possibly favorable. PBT had small (ES=0.57) but unclear differences for 1RM improvement than VBT. Conclusions: Both training methods improved 1RM and COD times, but PBT may be slightly favorable for stronger individuals focusing on maximal strength, whilst VBT was more beneficial for PV-CMJ, sprint and COD improvements.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Superior Changes in Jump, Sprint, and Change-of-Direction Performance but Not Maximal Strength Following 6 Weeks of Velocity-Based Training Compared With 1-Repetition-Maximum Percentage-Based Training

Popis výsledku anglicky

Purpose: This study compared the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) and one-repetition maximum (1RM) percent-based training (PBT) on changes in strength, loaded countermovement jump (CMJ) and sprint performance. Methods: Twenty-four resistance-trained males performed 6-weeks of full-depth free-weight back squats 3-times/week in a daily undulating format, with groups matched for sets and repetitions. PBT group lifted with fixed relative loads varying from 59-85% of pre-intervention 1RM. VBT group aimed for a sessional target velocity that was prescribed from pre-training individualized load-velocity profiles. Thus, real-time velocity feedback dictated the VBT set-by-set training load adjustments. Pre- and post-training assessments included 1RM, peak velocity for CMJ @30%1RM (PV-CMJ), 20-m sprint (including 5-m and 10-m), and 505 change-of-direction test (COD). Results: VBT group maintained faster (Effect Size [ES]=1.25) training repetitions with less perceived difficulty (ES=0.72) compared to PBT group. VBT group had likely to very likely improvements in COD (ES=-1.20--1.27), 5-m sprint (ES=-1.17), 10-m sprint (ES=-0.93), 1RM (ES=0.89) and PV-CMJ (ES=0.79). PBT group had almost certain improvements in 1RM (ES=1.41), and possibly beneficial COD (ES=-0.86). Very likely favorable between group effects were observed for VBT than PBT in PV-CMJ (ES=1.81), 5-m sprint (ES=1.35), and 20-m sprint (ES=1.27); likely favorable 10-m sprint (ES=1.24) and NDL-COD (ES=0.96); whilst DL-COD (ES=0.67) was possibly favorable. PBT had small (ES=0.57) but unclear differences for 1RM improvement than VBT. Conclusions: Both training methods improved 1RM and COD times, but PBT may be slightly favorable for stronger individuals focusing on maximal strength, whilst VBT was more beneficial for PV-CMJ, sprint and COD improvements.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30306 - Sport and fitness sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2021

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 [online]

ISSN

1555-0273

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

16

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

IT - Italská republika

Počet stran výsledku

11

Strana od-do

232-242

Kód UT WoS článku

000613977900012

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85101209761